Regional Service Improvement Plan

Transcription

1 Regional Service Improvement Plan November 2012

2 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MEMBERS Susan Haigh Chair Roxanne Smith District 1 Lona Schreiber District 2 Jennifer Munt District 3 Gary Van Eyll District 4 Steve Elkins District 5 James Brimeyer District 6 Gary L. Cunningham District 7 Adam Duininck District 8 Edward Reynoso District 9 John Ðoàn District 10 Sandy Rummel District 11 Harry Melander District 12 Richard Kramer District 13 Jon Commers District 14 Steven T. Chávez District 15 Wendy Wulff District 16 politan Council 390 North Robert Street Saint Paul MN General phone TTY public.info@metc.state.mn.us Website Publication no On request, this publication will be made available in alternative formats to people with disabilities. Call the politan Council at or TTY ii

3 CONTENTS I. Introduction... 1 Regional Service Improvement Plan Definition... 1 Purpose... 1 II. Policy Direction and Procedure Transportation Policy Plan... 3 Regional Service Improvement Plan Procedures... 3 Regional Operating Revenue Allocation Procedure... 3 III. RSIP Review Committee RSIP Review Committee Members... 4 Review Committee Meetings... 4 IV. Evaluation Factors... 5 Committee Review of Evaluation Factors... 5 Evaluation Factor Measurement... 5 V. Project Solicitation Process... 8 VI. Project Summary... 9 VII. Evaluation Factor Scores Dial a Ride Evaluation VIII. Summary of Proposed Service Improvements IX. Fleet Expansion Needs X. Mobility and Link Impacts XI Project Update Implemented Projects Completed Service Plans New Projects Appendix A. Project Documentation Forms and Instructions... A Appendix B. Summary of Projects... B Appendix C. Map of Projects... C Appendix D. Project Rank by Evaluation Factor... D Appendix E. Overall Project Ranks... E Appendix F. Regional Service Improvement Plan Procedure... F

4 I. INTRODUCTION REGIONAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PLAN DEFINITION The Regional Service Improvement Plan (RSIP) identifies opportunities to improve transit service in the metropolitan area over the period by expanding service coverage and increasing the frequency and span of service of the regular route transit network. The region s 2030 Transportation Policy Plan identifies expansion of the regular route transit system as a key element in achieving the regional goal of doubling transit ridership by This Regional Service Improvement Plan represents a milestone in this effort. By clearly identifying and evaluating service expansion projects, this plan will help clarify unmet transit needs and the best opportunities to meet those needs and advance regional transit goals. The projects in the RSIP are prioritized to emphasize those having the best likelihood of success in achieving those regional goals. Not all the projects included in the plan are expected to perform equally against the broad range of evaluation factors used to rank projects. An important next step is to address the question of whether projects that do not rank well in this plan should receive investment of limited regional transit operating funds. The plan is regional in scope. It reflects the ongoing coordination and common vision held by the region s seven transit service providers. Each provider has participated fully in this process, coming to consensus on an ambitious list of service expansion projects across the region. PURPOSE The 2030 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) recognizes that the regular route bus system will change and expand as population, congestion, and the cost of travel increase, as the region implements rail transit, and as customer needs change. Similarly, the TPP includes planned expansion of the region s transitway system. Defining these changes to transit service and advocating for funding to implement the changes is an important role of the politan Council and all regional transit providers as well as other stakeholders, including local government, businesses, and residents. The RSIP is the region s tool for identifying and prioritizing these transit service improvements. The RSIP also serves a role in determining where investment of regionally allocated operating funds for transit expansion would be most appropriate. The RSIP prioritizes regional expansion projects for consideration by funding decision makers. Finally, the RSIP provides a reasonable projection of future transit service to be included in the Regional Travel Demand Forecast Model. The Regional Travel Demand Forecast Model is used for determining future travel demand when planning for needs in the transportation system, including transitway investments. The RSIP is not intended to be a complete transit improvement or investment plan. It is not a long range plan; it does not include the entire regional transitway system; and it does not include nonservice investments such as vehicles, running ways, customer and support facilities, or technology enhancements. Page 1

5 It should also be noted that this RSIP is not a complete list of all transit service improvements in the region. All providers continually evaluate the service they provide and reinvest resources within existing budgets. Low performing services are reduced or eliminated, freeing up resources to reinvest in service improvements on high demand routes elsewhere. The projects listed in this plan are those which transit providers are not currently able to fund within existing operating funding resources. Page 2

6 II. POLICY DIRECTION AND PROCEDURE 2030 TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN The requirement for a Regional Service Improvement Plan is identified in the 2030 Transportation Policy Plan under Policy 14, Strategy 14c: Policy 14: System Operations and Management: The regional transit providers will promote innovation, efficiency, flexibility and greater diversity of options in operating and managing transit services. Strategy 14c. Service Improvement Plan: Every two years, regional transit providers in consultation with customers and stakeholders, will prepare a short term Service Improvement Plan that identifies their priorities for transit service expansion over the following two to four years. The plans will be submitted to the Council, which will prepare a regional Service Improvement Plan. III. REGIONAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROCEDURES The process for developing the RSIP is outlined in the Regional Service Improvement Plan Procedures adopted by the politan Council in 2010 and shown in Appendix F. This document calls for the creation of a RSIP Review Committee and lays out a four step process for the development of the RSIP: 1. Solicit two to four year Service Improvement Plans from all regional transit providers. 2. Review and combine service improvement projects into a single regional list. 3. Evaluate projects based on regional performance measures and other factors. 4. Prepare a categorized and prioritized list of projects to guide planning work and funding allocation decisions. REGIONAL OPERATING REVENUE ALLOCATION PROCEDURE The RSIP is also identified in the Regional Operating Revenue Allocation Procedure, adopted by the politan Council in This procedure outlines how the politan Council will allocate regional transit operating funding, including Regionally Allocated Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST), for service preservation and expansion. The top priority for Regionally Allocated MVST will be to preserve existing service. Once these needs are met, remaining Regionally Allocated MVST will be used to fund expansion projects that meet regional transit goals. The RSIP will be used as a screening tool for service expansion projects. Those providers that have projects that achieve a certain level of priority in the RSIP will be eligible for service expansion funding from Regionally Allocated MVST. For this purpose, the RSIP must prioritize projects to identify those that best support regional goals. RSIP REVIEW COMMITTEE The Regional Service Improvement Plan Procedures call for Council staff to convene a RSIP Review Committee to solicit, review, score and prioritize transit service expansion projects. This committee includes one representative from each suburban transit provider, two members from, one member from politan Transportation Services, and a staff liaison from the politan Council. Page 3

7 2011 RSIP REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS In January 2011, politan Council staff appointed John Levin, s Director of Service Development, as chair of the committee and Cole Hiniker, MTS Planner, as staff to the committee. They in turn, solicited members from all the regional transit providers. The assigned committee was as follows: John Levin,, Chair Cyndi Harper, John Harper, politan Transportation Services Mike Abegg, Minnesota Valley Authority Jane Kansier, City of Prior Lake Michael Leek, City of Shakopee Dave Jacobson, SouthWest Bernie Maciej, Plymouth link Mike Opatz, Maple Grove Cole Hiniker, politan Transportation Services, staff REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS The RSIP Review Committee met six times during 2011 and once in 2012 to discuss the following topics: 1. January 31, 2011 Kicked off process with an overview of RSIP purpose and procedure 2. February 23, 2011 Reviewed project solicitation information requirements, including ridership and cost estimation methodologies 3. March 30, 2011 Discussed project evaluation factors Finalized project description forms 4. September 23, 2011 Distributed project proposals Reviewed evaluation factors and point distribution 5. October 24, 2011 Overview of projects presented by providers Reviewed preliminary evaluation tables for the subsidy, passenger per in service hour, subsidy per passenger express mile, congestion, capital facilities, and innovation categories Began initial discussion of how to evaluate the benefits to low income/minority populations and the disability community categories 6. November 22, 2011 Determined evaluation methodology for the benefits to low income/minority populations and the benefits to the disability community categories Reviewed proposed scores for each category Discussed how to combine individual factors into an overall score Outlined final report 7. January 30, 2012 Reviewed draft RSIP report Page 4

8 IV. EVALUATION FACTORS COMMITTEE REVIEW OF EVALUATION FACTORS The Regional Service Improvement Plan Procedure identifies the evaluation factors that are to be used to support the development of a prioritized service improvement project list. The Review Committee reviewed these evaluation factors and made minor modifications. Specifically, the committee removed one evaluation factor, added one evaluation factor and agreed upon the details of how each of the evaluation factors would be measured and scored. The committee discussed the Local Support evaluation factor and chose not to include it in the overall project evaluation. The committee determined that any project submitted by a transit provider would have already gone through a process of establishing and determining whether there was support for the proposed improvements prior to submittal for the RSIP. In other words, the provider s inclusion of a project in their own plans was considered to be an adequate demonstration of local support for the project in the RSIP. One evaluation factor not originally included in the RSIP procedure, subsidy per passenger express mile, was added based on requests from committee members for a measure that recognized the value of long distance express routes. Subsidy per passenger express mile is determined by dividing the net service subsidy by the total number of passengers on board for each mile of nonstop express service. This measure balances the increased cost of long distance express service with the larger environmental, congestion, and customer benefits of carrying more people farther. Additional data was requested for each express service project to support the evaluation of this factor. In many cases, the passenger express miles value was approximated by multiplying the total service ridership by the non stop express miles on the service. EVALUATION FACTOR MEASUREMENT The final evaluation factors used for prioritization were: Subsidy per passenger, Passengers per in service hour, Subsidy per passenger express mile, Congestion mitigation, Capital facility coordination, Service to low income and minority populations, Benefits for the disabled community, and Innovation. For each factor, the committee agreed upon the criteria for assigning a rank of High, Medium or Low. The factors include a mix of quantitative measures and qualitative assessments, so the criteria for the ranks vary across the different factors. Scoring of several of the quantitative factors is based on relative performance compared to regional system averages or regional route averages. For this evaluation, the 2010 Regional Route Performance Analysis was used to provide these benchmarks. Evaluation factors referencing demographic data use either 2000 Census block group data (low income and disabled populations) or 2010 Census block data (minority populations). Page 5

9 For the overall prioritization of projects, the committee agreed to apply weights to reflect the relative importance of each factor. Objective factors that are tied directly to route performance, such as passengers per in service hour and subsidy per passenger, were weighted more heavily than qualitative and/or subjective measures such as innovation. Table IV 1 provides a summary of the evaluation factors and the methodology used to score and weight each factor. TABLE IV 1. RSIP EVALUATION FACTORS Evaluation Factor Measure Weight Subsidy per Passenger Passengers per In Service Hour (Productivity) Subsidy per Passenger Mile Congestion Mitigation Measured in proportion to regional averages for service type: High = Better than the regional system average* for service type Medium = Better than 130% of regional route average* for service type Low = Worse than 130% of regional route average* for service type Weekday, Saturday and Sunday scores are assigned separately, then a combined score is determined. When scores differ by service day, the overall score is generally the weekday score. If, however, the weekday score is lower than weekend but close to the threshold between scores, the overall score may instead be the same as Saturday or Sunday. Measured in proportion to regional standard for service type: High = Above regional system average* for service type Medium = Above regional average standard for service type Low = Below regional average standard for service type Weekday, Saturday and Sunday scores are assigned separately, then a combined score is determined. When scores differ by service day, the overall score is generally the weekday score. If, however, the weekday score is lower than weekend but close to the threshold between scores, the overall score may instead be the same as Saturday or Sunday. Dial a Ride service uses the small bus non fixed route standard of 3.0 riders per in service hour. Measured in proportion to the regional average for express routes. This factor only applies to peak express service. High = Better than the regional system average for express routes Medium = Better than 130% of the regional route average for express routes Low = Worse than 130% of the regional route average for express routes Subsidy per passenger express mile is calculated as the net route subsidy divided by the total route ridership multiplied by the nonstop distance of the route. Nonstop distance equals combined distance of all nonstop route segments over 2 miles, with exceptions for online stations like I 35W & Lake Street system average is $0.24 per passenger express mile Measured based on an assessment of level and length of congested freeway segments served by the route. This factor will only apply to peak express service. Congestion score = High congestion miles x 3 + medium congestion miles x 2 + low congestion miles x 1. High = Combined AM/PM congestion score > 25 Medium = score > 10 Low = score < 10 Congestion map from 2010 MnDOT Congestion Report: Page 6 25 points 25 points 10 points 10 points

10 Evaluation Factor Measure Weight Capital Facility and Running Way Coordination Benefits for Disabled Community Service to Minority and Low Income Populations Innovation Measured based on committee review of project and required capital facilities. High = No capital facilities required, or all necessary capital facilities either constructed or fully funded and planned for construction before service begins. Medium = Facilities programmed, but funding and construction not yet completed Low = Required facilities not programmed Programmed includes inclusion in a funded capital improvement program or the Transportation Improvement Program Capital facility for this evaluation does not include vehicles Measured based on comparison of population served by proposed service expansion to overall regional population, with adjustments for specific circumstances identified in the project documentation. High=Percentage of disabled persons within ¼ mile of boarding section of route exceeds regional average AND application describes extenuating circumstances Medium= Percentage of disabled persons within ¼ mile of boarding section of route exceeds regional average OR percentage of disabled persons within ¼ mile of boarding section of route is lower than regional average but application describes extenuating circumstances Low= Percentage of disabled persons within ¼ mile of boarding section of route is lower than regional average OR it is an express service with no local pick up outside downtown. Determine total population (age 5 and older) and disabled populations living within ¼ mile of the boarding section of a route. The regional average is 14.2% disabled. Measured based on comparison of population served by proposed service expansion to overall regional population. High=Percentage of low income and minority persons within ¼ mile of boarding section of route exceeds twice the regional average (200%) Medium= Percentage of disabled persons within ¼ mile of boarding section of route exceeds regional average ( %) Low= Percentage of disabled persons within ¼ mile of boarding section of route is lower than regional average; all express routes serving just a park and ride with no local section outside downtown The regional average for low income populations is 7.2% and the regional average for minority populations is 26.1%. High / Medium / Low based on recommendation of project sponsor and assessment by committee. Examples of service innovations include LRT and BRT lines, flex routes, high frequency network improvements and projects collecting multiple service types into one location. 12 points 8 points 8 points 5 points *The regional system average for subsidy per passenger is calculated as the total subsidy across all routes divided by the total number of passengers. The regional route average is calculated as the sum of the subsidy per passenger values for each route divided by the total number of routes. Both statistics will be calculated across all routes within a given route type (i.e. urban local, suburban local and express). Page 7

11 V. PROJECT SOLICITATION PROCESS To ensure a standard format for project documentation, the Review Committee prepared project solicitation forms and instructions for providers to develop project submittals and document ridership and costs. For each project, providers were asked to include the following detailed information: Service provider Route/project number, name, or identification Projects not limited to a single route improvement Proposed implementation year The initial solicitation is for projects to begin between Route type and categorization Route types include express, suburban local, urban local/limited stop and other (such as highway bus rapid transit) Project purpose Options include: increasing capacity, improving connectivity and coverage, developing new markets, and increasing service quality; projects may have multiple purposes Description of the transit improvement Includes markets/destinations served and reason for the improvement; Improvement defined as anything that a provider considers to be a service expansion, not just service management (i.e. an added trip to address an existing overload is considered service management) Capital facilities Includes existing and future capital investments planned with or required for the service and the funding status of capital requirements; does not include fleet expansion Description of benefits to the low income, minority, and disabled populations Description of congestion mitigation Applies only to express projects Description of project innovation Map of new route or existing route with proposed changes service and performance estimates New trips, platform hours, buses, ridership and costs route projects were requested to use the methodology outlined in the Park & Ride Plan to determine unmet demand and how proposed service helps would meet that demand. Local route projects were advised to use a reasonable method for estimating ridership, considering ridership on similar routes in terms of density, land use, and service levels. At the committee s request, ridership estimation guidelines were prepared and a session was held regarding the use of the U.S. Census Bureau s Longitudinal Employment Household Dynamics (LEHD) data and the methodology in the Park & Ride Plan. To determine project cost, the providers were asked to use fully allocated costs consistent with the data provided for the Regional Route Performance Analysis. Estimated fare revenue Defined as the number of estimated rides multiplied by the projected fare revenue per passenger, based on similar services Planned or potential funding sources Includes examples such as Regionally Allocated MVST, Counties Improvement Board funds or federal grants The project documentation forms were distributed in April The blank project documentation form, resource table, and directions are provided in Appendix A. Originally, the submittals were requested to be due in late May This timeline was extended until early September 2011 due to the extended legislative session and state government shutdown. Page 8

12 VI. PROJECT SUMMARY A total of 62 projects were submitted by the regional transit service providers, 60 regular route bus projects, one light rail transit (LRT) project, and one dial a ride project. Each provider submitted at least one project 1. A summary of the submitted projects is provided in Table VII 1 below and in Appendix B. A complete of set of documentation for all projects is available as an addendum to this report. Table VI 1 provides a summary of all the submitted projects. Not all of these projects are expected to be implemented. However, if they were, the submitted bus projects would represent an increase of approximately 1,800 daily hours of service. (This does not include the Green Line LRT service project.) If implemented, this would represent an increase of 14% over current regional regular route bus service, require an additional 154 peak buses (15% increase) and attract an additional 9.8 million annual rides (13% increase). TABLE VI 1 SUMMARY OF ALL PROJECTS BY PROVIDER Service Provider Projects Total Hours Service Hours Total Cost Net Subsidy Peak Buses Annual Rides Maple Grove 4 10,685 7,489 $814,580 $477, ,340 * , ,070 $37,470,046 $27,989, ,775, ,550 39,560 $5,399,504 $3,951, ,903 Plymouth 3 5,855 5,855 $835,423 $570, ,550 Southwest 1 8,803 4,373 $1,094,427 $643, ,590 BlueXpress ** 1 9,563 2,889 $784,125 $533, ,800 Subtotal Bus , ,236 $46,398,105 $34,165, ,897,560 Green Line LRT 1 66,726 54,643 $23,220,578 $15,890, ,682,019 * Includes politan Council contracted routes ** BlueXpress service is provided jointly by Prior Lake and Shakopee There were four project purposes identified in the project documentation forms, with any one project potentially addressing more than one purpose. Of the 62 projects submitted: 24 projects would increase capacity to meet growing demand, 44 projects would improve connectivity and coverage, 26 projects would develop new markets, and 55 projects would improve the quality of service. In general, projects in the RSIP represent three key service expansion opportunities for the region: Implementation of regional LRT and BRT transitway service The Green Line LRT, Phase I of the Orange Line BRT (I 35W South corridor), and Phases I and II of the Red Line BRT (Cedar Ave corridor) as well as local services connecting to these transitways are included in the RSIP. New or expanded limited stop bus service in several of the corridors being studied for Rapid Bus (arterial BRT) is also included. 1 Projects that would be contracted to a private provider funded by the politan Council are combined with s projects for the purpose of the RSIP. Although the Red Line BRT will be operated by, it is listed as a politan Council project since the Council, in cooperation with CTIB, is the lead agency in funding the project. Page 9

13 Expansion of the frequency, span, and coverage of the local route network Seven additional bus routes (Routes 2, 3, 4, 22, 62, 68 and 74) are proposed to meet the High Frequency Network standards of 15 minute service between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturdays. Several other routes would have frequency increases that do not rise to the level of the High Frequency Network but are still an improvement over existing service levels. Other routes would see a wider span of service, new weekend service, or new service in areas currently not served by transit. Additional express service to meet growing demand at park and rides The RSIP is coordinated with the Regional Park and Ride Plan. Major park and ride capacity expansions are matched with proposed service expansion to meet growing ridership demand. The RSIP has also been coordinated with existing and requested Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grants as well as the facility improvements programmed in the region. The projects are geographically distributed throughout the region, although there is some concentration in St. Paul, where several service improvements are proposed in coordination with the Green Line LRT, and in the service area, where several service improvements are proposed in coordination with the Red Line BRT service. A map of the projects is provided in Appendix C. Page 10

14 VII. EVALUATION FACTOR SCORES Using the evaluation factor measures and weights outline above, all projects were assigned a rank of High, Medium, or Low for each evaluation factor. The evaluation factor measures and ranks for each project are provided in Appendix D. These ranks were then translated into points based on the rank and the weight of each factor. Projects receiving a High score for a factor were assigned three points times the weight for that factor; projects ranked Medium were assigned two points times the weight; and projects ranked Low were assigned one point times the weight. For example, a project scoring High in the category of subsidy per passenger would be assigned 75 points (25 weight x 3 points) while a project scoring Low would get 25 points (25 weight x 1 point). The total points for each project were determined by adding the points for each individual evaluation factor that applies to that project. Since some of the evaluation factors only applied to certain types of routes, the total possible points is not the same for all projects. Therefore, the overall score is not based on total points, but on the percent of possible points that are earned by the project. For the overall project rank, projects that earned at least 75 percent of the possible points were ranked High, projects that earned between 60 percent and 74.9 percent of possible points were ranked Medium, and projects that earned less than 60 percent of possible points were ranked Low. A summary of the projects and rankings is shown in Table VII 1 and the detail project rankings are provided in Appendix E. Of the 62 projects that were scored (60 bus, one LRT and one dial a ride), 20 projects ranked High, 30 projects ranked Medium, and 12 projects ranked Low. The outcome of this scoring process, including the individual evaluation factor ranks and weights, and the thresholds for determining overall project rank, achieve the result that any project that does not at least meet the minimum regional standards for subsidy per passenger for passengers per in service hour received an overall rank of Low. All other projects received a rank of Medium or High, based not only on those two evaluation factors but also on all the other factors. Page 11

15 TABLE VII 1. PROJECT SUMMARY Provider Route Route Type Description Year Rank 2 Urban Local HFN Standard between Franklin/Hiawatha and Wash/Oak. Freq between Franklin/Hennepin and Oak/Wash will improve to 10 min between 5:30am 7pm on WK, 9am 6:30pm on SAT and 9am 6pm on 2014 High SUN. Add new branch between Oak/Wash and Raymond LRT Station. 3 Urban Local Improve WK to 10 min trunk, 20 min branch freq by extending "C" trips. On SAT and SUN, improve freq to 15min freq west of Snelling Ave, east of Rice St. & Como Ave; 30 min on Front and Maryland Ave Medium 4 Urban Local Meet HFN Criteria daily of 15 min freq between 31st/Bryant and Hennepin/Washington on WK and SUN Medium 5 Urban Local 10 Urban Local New limited stop Arterial BRT service on Chicago Ave: MOA 7th St Garage. Local route between MOA and 56th St, limited stop at streets with connecting routes north of 56th to HCMC. Replaces Route 5E, keep BCTC HCMC and MOA 33rd/Lowry 30 min. local service. Weekday: improve freq from 10 min. to 7.5 min. between 8am 4pm south of CHTC. Saturday: improve freq from 15 min to 10 min between 9am 6pm. Sunday: Improve frequency from 20 min to 15 min between 9am 6pm and extend service to Northtown until 11pm Medium 2013 High 11 Urban Local Midday and Saturday freq between 46th St Station and 2nd St NE/Lowry improves from 30 min to 15 min Medium 19 Urban Local Improve frequency on SUN from 30 min to 15 min between 9am 6pm on Sunday High 22 Urban Local 23 Urban Local 60 Urban Local 61 Urban Local 62 Urban Local 63 Urban Local 65 Urban Local 67 Urban Local Weekday: improve freq between 45th Ave/Lyndale and downtown Minneapolis from 20 min to 15 min between 6am 7pm to meet HFN standards. Saturday: improve freq between 45th Ave/Lyndale and downtown Minneapolis from 20 min to 15 min between 9am 6pm to meet HFN standards. Sunday: improve freq between 45th Ave/Lyndale and downtown Minneapolis from 30 min to 15 min between 12pm 6pm. Off peak freq in south Mpls reduced from 20 min to 30 min. Weekday: improve peak freq from 20 min to 15 min. Weekend: improve midday freq from 30 min to 20 min. New loop route via University, Victoria, St Clair, Hamline, University, Snelling. 6am 8pm WK span of service. 8am 8pm SAT and SUN span of service. Connecting bus service for Central LRT. Weekday: improve freq between 6am 7pm from 30 min to 15 min and between 7pm 10:30pm from 60 min to 30 min. Saturday: improve freq between 6am 8pm from 60 min to 30 min. Add Sunday service every 60 min between 6am 8pm. Improve freq between California/Camelot and downtown St Paul between 6am 7pm on weekdays and 9am 6pm on Saturdays from 30 min to 15 min to meet HFN standards. Extend route from Summit/Cretin to Univ./Emerald LRT Station via Cretin Ave and Desnoyer Park neighborhood. Off peak freq improved from 30 min to 15 min on weekdays, from 30 min to 20 min on Saturday, and from 60 min to 30 min on Sunday. Improve WK freq from 30 min to 15 min and weekend freq from 60 min to 30 min. Reroute south of Lake St to Grand Ave. Extend route south of University Ave via Fairview Ave, Ford Pkwy to Highland Village. Provide Highland Park connection to CCLRT. Improve WK freq between 6am 7pm from 30 min to 15 min, weekend freq from between 9am 6pm from 60 min to 30 min. Widen span to start at 5am on SAT and 6am on SUN. Page High 2013 Medium 2015 High 2015 Medium 2014 High 2014 Medium 2014 Medium 2014 Medium

16 TABLE VII 1. PROJECT SUMMARY (cont.) Provider Route Route Type Description Year Rank 68 Urban Local Improve freq between 14th/Jackson and 5th Ave/South St in South St Paul to 15 min between 6am 7pm on WK and between 9am 6pm on SAT Medium 74 Urban Local Freq between Stillwater Ave/Nokomis Ave and 46th St LRT Station will be improved to 15 min between 6am 7pm (weekday) or 9am 6pm (Saturday) to meet HFN standards Medium 80 Urban Local Improve freq to 30 min between 6:30am 9:30pm on WK, 6:30am 7:30pm on SAT, and 6:30am 7:30pm on SUN. Widen weekend span Medium 83 Urban Local New route via W. 7th/Otto to Rosedale via Lexington, Hamline Ave to connect with LRT. 15 min peak/30 min offpeak on WK and SAT. 6am 11:30pm WK and 7am 7pm SAT span of service High 84 Urban Local New Arterial BRT limited stop and shortline between Como and Edgcumbe. Improve freq to 10 min during peak periods and to 15 min in the midday and Saturday. Improve freq from 30 min to 15 min on Sunday High Ltd stop span of service is 6am 1am. Local service remains at 30 min freq. 87 Urban Local Add weekday evening service between 7pm 11:30pm at 90 min freq to serve St. Paul campus night classes. Add Saturday service every 30 min between 7am 7pm Medium 110 Urban Local New U of M Longfellow direct service via 46th Ave, 42nd St, 34th St, 36th Ave, 25th St, 27th Ave, Franklin Ave, Riverside Ave, Washington Ave. 3 peak period trips High 535 Urban Local Orange Line 35W South BRT Service. Extend service to Burnsville TS. Separate the existing 535 service to Knox P&R and Best Buy. Replace Route 146 with 7.5 min freq on Route 46 and Route 535. Weekend: Medium min freq 6am 10pm. 54 E. 7th St Urban Local New Arterial BRT limited stop service on the east side of St. Paul via E. 7th, Arcade, Maryland and White Bear Ave to Maplewood Mall. 15 min freq on WK between 6am 10pm, on SAT between 7am 10pm. SUN 2014 Low freq at 30 min between 7am 10pm. 54 W. 7th St Urban Local Improve W. 7th St. Arterial BRT span and freq and connect with new limited stop service on the east side of St. Paul. Improve WK freq from 15 min to 7.5 min during peak Medium Met Council Red Line BRT Urban Local Provide all day, BRT service at 15 min frequency during the week and 30 min frequency on weekends between AVTS and Mall of America Stations Medium 421 Suburban Local Increase service span between 6am 6pm to 60 min on flex route in Burnsville and Savage Medium 440 Suburban Local Improve freq from 90 min to 60 min all day Low 446 Suburban Local Expand weekday local service to 60 min base and peak, 30 min reverse peak. Widen span? 2012 Low 515 Improve WK and SAT evening freq to 15 min until 9:30PM (Southdale) to meet increased demand. Suburban SUNDAY: Improve freq from min to 15 min from 11am 6pm(Southdale). Operate added trips via Local Longfellow Ave or VAMC 2013 High 721 Suburban Local Increase service from 60 min to 30 min between 9am 4pm High 723 Suburban Local Improve frequency from 60 min to 30 min between 6am 8pm to meet growing demand for service to North Hennepin Community College High Page 13

17 TABLE VII 1. PROJECT SUMMARY (cont.) Provider Route Route Type Description Year Rank Maple Grove 788B Suburban Local New feeder route with timed transfer to the Route 780 at the Shepherd of the Grove church High Cedar BRT Suburban Expand weekday local feeder service in the Cedar Avenue corridor to implement the Cedar Avenue Local Local way IPU. 60 min freq maybe 30 min freq in peak? 2012 Medium Cedar BRT Suburban First part of Stage 2 weekday local expansion for Cedar BRT project. 60 min freq maybe some 30 min Local Stage II Local during peak? 2016 Low Cedar BRT Suburban First part of Stage 2 weekend local/feeder expansion for Cedar BRT project. 60 min freq. Add weekend Local Stage II Local service to some existing weekday routes, as well as possible new services. weekend 2015 Low Local Suburban Expand local routes to areas not currently served to meet 's Service Investment Strategies. Coverage Local Assessment and prioritization needed. 60 min freq likely Low Sunday Suburban Expand Sunday local service to level equal to current Saturday service. Add service on Route 441 and Local extend span on Routes 444 and min freq proposed Medium Increase peak and midday service for P&R expansion of 500 spaces, which opened in Peak period 250 freq will increase from 5 8 min to 3 5 min, and two midday trips will be added to provide 90 min midday 2014 Medium freq. 270 Add 3 AM and 3 PM trips between Maplewood Mall and downtown Minneapolis (bypass Co C) for P&R growth High 275 Add 4AM and 4PM trips to travel between downtown St Paul and new 35E/Co Rd 14 park and ride. Redirect current resources to travel between downtown St Paul and new 35E/Co Rd E park and ride in Vadnais Heights. Close Cub Foods Park and Ride High 376 New Manning Ave P&R. Minneapolis express. Ten round trips per CMAQ grant four funded by grant High 386 New Manning Ave Park & Ride St. Paul express. Four round trips per CMAQ grant Medium BlueXpress Expansion of existing Route 490 to serve Marschall Road Station using 3 coach buses. A bus only ramp from the station to US Highway 169 will be constructed to facilitate the express service. Some trips may serve U of M and a midday trip may be added. New buses may also enhance reverse commute express service. Additional trips for new Edina P&R near Hwy 100/Eden. New branch via Vernon Ave and Lincoln Dr to replace Route 146. Improve service for 2006 P&R expansion, widen peak span. Deferred CMAQ grant. Add 4 AM and 4 PM trips at fringe of peak. Extend route to serve new Maple Plain Hwy 12 Park and Ride. CMAQ application. Four new trips each peak period serving Maple Plain. Improve freq in Long Lake and Wayzata. East of Ridgedale, improve midday and early evening freq from 30 min to 15 min. Improve fringe of peak freq from 30 min to 15 min Medium 2015 Medium 2015 High 2016 Low 2015 Medium Page 14

18 TABLE VII 1. PROJECT SUMMARY (cont.) Provider Route Route Type Description Year Rank 766 Increase service for Noble P&R expansion/relocation. Add 8 SB and 8 NB trips to improve freq from 10 min to 7.5 min High Plymouth 772 Increase service from 30 minutes to 15 minutes during am and pm peak period Low Plymouth 776 Increase service from 30 minutes to 15 minutes during am and pm peak period Low Maple Grove 785 Maple Grove 786 Add express trips (4 inbound and 5 outbound) to the existing Route 785 to increase frequency and span of service. This corresponds with Parkway Station Phase 2 which adds 210 spaces and has been approved for final design. Add new express route serving the southwest and south portions of Maple Grove primarily operating along Bass Lake Road to serve new park & ride at 494/Bass Lake High 2015 Medium Plymouth 790 Increase service from 20 minutes to 10 minutes during am and pm peak period Low Southwest 169 Service Cedar BRT Cedar BRT Stage II I 35W Rosemount St Paul New express service to downtown Mpls and U of M from new 300 stall park and ride at Pioneer Tr./Hennepin Townline Rd (near US 169) in Eden Prairie. 30 min AM peak freq, one midday and evening trip, 15 min PM peak freq. Other services could include reverse commute service to Golden Triangle and suburban circulator if warranted by demand. CMAQ application. Implement new Route 471 between Cedar Grove downtown Mpls with 12 trips. Add 4 trips on existing Route 475 between Cedar Grove, downtown Mpls and U of M midday. Eliminate 2 trips on route 472 (as well as shortening of 8 other trips). First part of Stage 2 expansion for Cedar BRT. Add trips on Routes 471, 475, 476 and 477 to compliment station to station service. Reduce freq by one third. Provide funding for the new services that will begin in 2013 under an approved CMAQ grant. Improve existing Routes 464 and 465, including a new, more direct express route serving Savage Park & Ride. Improve freq on Route 464 from 30 min peak to min with a faster schedule. Improve freq on Route 465 from 30 min peak/60 min off peak to 15 min peak/30 min off peak. Increase frequency and span of Weekday service between Rosemount and downtown Minneapolis as described in the approved CMAQ project application. Improve service from 2 trips each dir to 30 min peak period/15 min peak half hour. Increase freq and span of weekday Routes 480 and 484 per approved CMAQ application. Current freq is 30 min on Route 484 and 30 min on each Route 480 branch. Add 15 min peak of peak trunk freq from Blackhawk P&R and Eagan Center Medium 2012 Low 2015 Low 2013 Medium 2013 Medium 2014 Medium LRT Green Line LRT LRT service replaces Route 50 and most of Route High Maple Grove DAR Dial a ride Add 16 hours/2 vehicles of weekday MG Dial A Ride service 2013 Medium Page 15

19 DIAL A RIDE EVALUATION Dial a ride service is an important aspect of the regional transit system, but its role and performance within the overall transit network is difficult to evaluate because it is intended to serve a complementary role to fixed route local and express route services. For this evaluation, the lone dial a ride service expansion project from Maple Grove was evaluated along with the other fixed route service projects to the extent possible. There were some changes required to the evaluation because of the different regional standards for dial a ride and fixedroute services. Because of the small number of dial a ride services with very different operating contexts, it is not practical to calculate a regional route average subsidy per passenger or passengers per in service hour for dial a ride service. Similarly, while there is a regional passengers per in service hour standard for small bus nonfixed routes, there is no regional subsidy per passenger performance standard for dial a ride. For this reason, dial a ride service was not evaluated against a subsidy per passenger standard and the scoring of the passengers per in service hour evaluation factor was adjusted. These changes are reflected in the specific project evaluation scores. Based on these complexities, the Review Committee members have agreed that further discussion is needed of how dial a ride service expansion should be considered in the context of the Regional Service Improvement Plan. Specifically, the need to expand dial a ride service will need to be considered from a regional perspective. To address this, the RSIP Committee requests that politan Council staff convene a discussion of dial a ride expansion planning. This discussion should address not only the need for expansion of dial a ride service in the context of fixed route service expansion, but also in the broader context of regional transit operations funding allocation. VIII. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS Table VIII 1 shows the total service cost, net subsidy and ridership for projects in the RSIP grouped by rank. Table VIII 2 shows this same information as a percentage of the total. These tables do not include the Green Line LRT project. TABLE VIII 1. COST AND RIDERSHIP OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Project Rank Projects Cost Subsidy Ridership Subsidy/Passenger High 19 $9,210,630 $5,612,087 3,149,885 $1.78 Medium 30 $29,980,552 $22,736,782 5,898,521 $3.85 Low 12 $7,206,923 $5,816, ,154 $6.85 Total 61 $46,209,038 $34,000,985 9,885,320 $3.45 Page 16

20 TABLE VIII 2. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AS PERCENT OF TOTAL Project Rank Percent of Cost Percent of Subsidy Percent of Ridership High 20% 16% 32% Medium 65% 67% 60% Low 16% 17% 9% Total 100% 100% 100% Table VIII 3 shows the distribution of projects by provider, year of proposed service expansion and route type. TABLE VIII 3. DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECTS BY PROVIDER, YEAR AND ROUTE TYPE Provider High Medium Low Total /Met Council Maple Grove Minnesota Valley Authority Southwest Plymouth link Prior Lake/Shakopee BlueXpress Total Proposed Implementation Year High Medium Low Total Total Route Type High Medium Low Total Urban Local Suburban Local Light Rail Dial a Ride Total Page 17

21 IX. FLEET EXPANSION NEEDS Overall, the projects included in the RSIP would require the addition of 156 peak buses. Using a standard spare ratio of 20%, this would require an additional 187 total buses. These would be a mix of standard buses, small buses, and larger articulated and coach buses. Exact fleet requirements will depend on which projects are implemented. Given that regional bus storage and maintenance capacity is already nearly full, the addition of more than a few dozen buses to the fleet will likely also require the expansion of garage capacity. The exact nature and cost of this expansion will depend in part on what service improvements are implemented. This plan does not project the capital cost for additional buses or capital and operating costs for additional bus storage and maintenance facilities X. METRO MOBILITY AND TRANSIT LINK IMPACTS Projects that propose all day service in a community currently served only during peak periods or not at all, as well as projects broadening the span of service, may have an impact on dial a ride services such as Mobility and Link. XI. Specifically, Mobility s weekend span of service in Apple Valley, Blaine, Burnsville, Eagan, Spring Lake Park, and West St. Paul will need to be reviewed if various projects associated with the Red Line as well as Route 10 improvements are implemented. In addition, Link customers along potential new fixed routes may no longer be eligible for service PROJECT UPDATE With transit service planning continuing on an ongoing basis, a plan such as this can only be a snapshot in time. As detailed in Section III above, the solicitation process for projects to include in the Regional Service Improvement Plan began in early 2011 and was completed later that year. Since that time, several changes have occurred that should be considered in the context of overall regional transit service expansion needs. Some projects have been implemented, while in other cases, subsequent planning efforts have changed the details of the service expansion or led to additional projects being added to expansion priorities. Several examples of these changes are provided below. As this RSIP is used to inform regional decisions regarding funding of transit expansion projects, these changes should be considered. Some projects no longer require expansion funding for implementation while other projects that are not currently listed in the RSIP may be equally as deserving of funding as project already in the plan. IMPLEMENTED PROJECTS While there is not currently funding available for transit service expansion in the region, all providers are able to continually evaluate the service they provide and reinvest resources within existing budgets. Specifically, low performing service can be reduced, freeing up resources to invest in service improvements elsewhere. As many of the projects indentified in this RSIP are high priority projects, several planned improvements have already been fully or partially implemented. These improvements have been offset by service reductions on other routes or service efficiencies elsewhere. Page 18

22 Specific examples of recent service improvements that are also identified in this RSIP include: Route 3 Saturday trunk frequency improvement Route 10 weekend frequency improvement Route 19 Sunday frequency improvement Route 68 evening frequency improvement Route 515 evening frequency improvement Route 721 midday frequency improvement Route 723 midday frequency improvement Route 675 midday frequency improvement COMPLETED SERVICE PLANS Since the solicitation for this RSIP, several service planning projects have been completed that have bearing on the service improvements that are included in his plan. Central Corridor Service Study: Improvements identified in the RSIP on routes 2, 3, 60, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 83, 84 and 87 were considered as part of the Central Corridor Service Study. Staff review and public comment led to several changes to the plans initially proposed. The resulting recommended service plan, which is anticipated to be adopted in November 2012, results in a somewhat different set of route change recommendations. Cedar BRT / Red Line Implementation: Planning for the implementation of Red Line BRT service has progressed through 2012, with start of operations now planned for spring The final service plan for the Red Line is expected to be similar to the project documented in the RSIP. Concurrent planning for associated local and express service in the Cedar Avenue corridor is also underway. NEW PROJECTS Regional providers are continually exploring opportunities to improve transit service. There are several additional service expansion proposals that were not included in this RSIP but which regional providers have now included in their service expansion plan. These include: TH 65/Central Avenue express bus service expansion to Minneapolis I 35E North express bus service expansion to downtown Saint Paul Local service improvements identified in the 2012 Minnetonka Study These service improvements are anticipated to be included in the next update to the RSIP. Page 19

23 Page 20

24 APPENDIX A Project Documentation Forms Project Documentation Form Instructions

25 REGIONAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT DOCUMENTATION PART A- PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Service Provider: 2. Project Name: 3. Year of Implementation: Select a year: 4. Service Type: Select a service type: If Other: 5. Project Purpose (select all that apply): Increase Capacity to Meet Growing Demand Improve Network Connectivity and Coverage Develop New Markets Increase Service Quality (Frequency, Span of Service, Speed) 6. Briefly describe the proposed service improvement. Please attach a map of the route(s) with the proposed change(s) or the new route(s). 7. Describe any existing or future capital facilities or runningway investments associated with this service improvement, including funding status: 8. Explain how the project will benefit the disability community: 9. Describe how the project will benefit minority and/or low-income populations: 10. If applicable, explain how the project mitigates congestion: 11. Describe how the service improvement is innovative: PART B- PROJECT COSTS/REVENUE 12. Document the methodology and assumptions used to determine ridership, cost and revenue estimates: 13. Identify planned or potential funding sources: Appendix A-1

26 Project Name: REGIONAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT DOCUMENTATION Average Revenue Per Passenger Weekday Saturday Sunday/Holidays Annual Total Current In-Service Hours (Daily) 0 New In-Service Hours (Daily) 0 Total In-Service Hours (Daily) Current Platform Hours (Daily) 0 New Platform Hours (Daily) 0 Total Platform Hours (Daily) Current Ridership (Daily) 0 New Ridership (Daily) 0 Total Ridership (Daily) Current Annual Cost of Service $0 New Annual Cost of Service $0 Total Annual Cost of Service $0 $0 $0 $0 Current Annual Fare Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 New Annual Fare Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Annual Fare Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 Current Annual Subsidy $0 $0 $0 $0 New Annual Subsidy $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Annual Subsidy $0 $0 $0 $0 Current Subsidy Per Passenger #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! New Subsidy Per Passenger #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Total Subsidy Per Passenger #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Current Passengers Per In-Service Hour New Passengers Per In-Service Hour #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Total Passengers Per In-Service Hour #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Existing Peak Bus Requirement NA NA NA New Peak Bus Requirement NA NA NA Total Peak Bus Requirement 0 NA NA NA Existing Trips Provided 0 New Trips Provided 0 Total Trips Provided Formula-based cells calculate automatically Appendix A-2

27 REGIONAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT DOCUMENTATION INSTRUCTIONS The Regional Service Improvement Plan (RSIP) is mandated in the politan Council s Transportation Policy Plan. It will be used as a screening tool for service expansion projects to identify those that best support regional goals. Those providers that have projects that achieve a certain level of priority in the RSIP will be eligible for service expansion funding from Regionally Allocated Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (RA- MVST). All service providers must complete the application, although a provider is not required to propose any service improvement projects. Any project that will be requesting funding from RA-MVST funds that may become available between must submit an application. Any service improvement project within the 7-county metro is eligible. The applications will be reviewed and evaluated by the RSIP Review Committee, prioritized for implementation, and combined into a single list. Particular attention will be paid to the service level, cost estimates and ridership projections, as these values significantly influence the evaluation factors used to compare projects. Please return an electronic version of the completed application to Cole Hiniker, Planner, politan Council at cole.hiniker@metc.state.mn.us. Applications must be received by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, May 27, 2011 for consideration. NARRATIVE PART A- PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Service Provider: Name of transit provider submitting the project 2. Project Name: Route Number or Identification 3. Year of Implementation: Select a year from the drop-down menu 4. Service Type: Select a category from the drop-down menu. For other, please explain. 5. Project Purpose: Select one or more categories from the drop-down list 6. Describe the proposed improvement, including the proposed markets/destinations that the improvement will serve. Please attach a map of the route(s) with the proposed change(s) or the new route(s). 7. Please describe the following items for any proposed capital facility or running way improvements: Funding status-fully funded, programmed, partially funded, or unfunded Funding source(s) such as regional transit capital (RTC); local, regional, state or federal grants and bonds; local match requirements Year of planned construction Appendix A-3

28 Whether the improvement is included in an adopted CIP 8. Please describe if the service improvement benefits the disability community. The definition of disability in this submittal is anyone with a disability of any type. 9. Explain if the project specifically benefits minority and/or low-income populations, such as serving low-income housing, entry level jobs or areas with a high percentage of minority or low-income populations. 10. The congestion mitigation category applies only to express routes or service improvements traveling on highways. Please document the length and level of congestion that the improvement bypasses, using MnDOT congestion maps or other source. 11. Please describe if the proposed service improvement is innovative. NARRATIVE PART B -PROJECT COSTS/REVENUE Please provide operational information related to the proposed route or service improvement. All providers should use the fully allocated cost methodology developed for the Regional Route Performance Analysis when determining operational expenses associated with a service improvement. Financial costs and revenues should be calculated using 2011 dollars. Ridership should be calculated at the time the service improvement reaches maturity (usually months after implementation). Ridership projections for express services should be based on the five-step Park and Ride Demand Estimation Methodology outlined in the regional Park and Ride Plan, available online at Ridership projections for other routes can be based on comparable existing services and/or LEHD data, available online at PROJECT STATISTICS AND COSTS TABLE Please provide projected operational information related to the proposed route or service improvement. Please fill in the cells relevant for the days of service being proposed: Peak bus requirements do not apply to weekends. Please indicate whichever peak period has the higher requirement. This number should not include spares. In-Service Hours is defined as the amount of time when a vehicle starts in-service at the first scheduled pick-up point on a trip to the time the vehicle is out of service at the last scheduled drop-off time point on the same trip. It does not include deadhead, layover or recovery time. Platform Hours is defined as the time from when a vehicle starts from a garage to go into revenue service to the time it returns to the garage after completing its revenue service. Appendix A-4

29 APPENDIX B Summary of Projects

30 Regional Service Improvement Plan Projects Provider Route Route Type Description HFN Standard between Franklin/Hiawatha and Wash/Oak. Freq between Franklin/Hennepin and Oak/Wash will 2 UrbLoc improve to 10 min betw/ 5:30am-7pm on WK, 9am-6:30pm on SAT and 9am-6pm on SUN. Add new branch between Oak/Wash and Raymond LRT Station. 3 UrbLoc Improve WK to 10" trunk, 20" branch freq by extending "C" trips. On SAT and SUN, improve freq to 15" freq west of Snelling Ave, east of Rice St. & Como Ave; 30" on Front and Maryland Ave. Year Increase Capacity to Meet Growing Demand Improve Connectivity and Coverage Develop New Markets Increase Service Quality 2014 X X 2014 X X 4 UrbLoc Meet HFN Criteria daily of 15 min freq between 31st/Bryant and Hennepin/Washington on WK and SUN X X 5 UrbLoc 10 UrbLoc New limited stop Arterial BRT service on Chicago Ave: MOA-7th St Garage. Local route between MOA and 56th St, limited stop at streets with connecting routes north of 56th to HCMC. Replaces Route 5E, keep BCTC-HCMC and MOA-33rd/Lowry 30 min. local service. Weekday: improve freq from 10 min. to 7.5 min. between 8am-4pm south of CHTC. Saturday: improve freq from 15 min to 10 min between 9am-6pm. Sunday: Improve frequency from 20 min to 15 min between 9am-6pm and extend service to Northtown until 11pm X X 2013 X X X 11 UrbLoc Midday and Saturday freq between 46th St Station and 2nd St NE/Lowry improves from 30 min to 15 min X X 19 UrbLoc Improve frequency on SUN from 30 min to 15 min between 9am-6pm on Sunday X X 22 UrbLoc Weekday: improve freq between 45th Ave/Lyndale and downtown Minneapolis from 20 min to 15 min between 6am-7pm to meet HFN standards. Saturday: improve freq between 45th Ave/Lyndale and downtown Minneapolis from 20 min to 15 min between 9am-6pm to meet HFN standards. Sunday: improve freq between 45th Ave/Lyndale and downtown Minneapolis from 30 min to 15 min between 12pm-6pm. Off-peak freq in south Mpls reduced from 20 min to 30 min X X 23 UrbLoc Weekday: improve peak freq from 20 min to 15 min. Weekend: improve midday freq from 30 min to 20 min X X 60 UrbLoc New loop route via University, Victoria, St Clair, Hamline, University, Snelling. 6am-8pm WK span of service. 8am- 8pm SAT and SUN span of service. Connecting bus service for Central LRT X X Weekday: improve freq between 6am-7pm from 30 min to 15 min and between 7pm-10:30pm from 60 min to UrbLoc min. Saturday: improve freq between 6am-8pm from 60 min to 30 min. Add Sunday service every 60 min between 2015 X X 6am-8pm. 62 UrbLoc Improve freq between California/Camelot and downtown St Paul between 6am-7pm on weekdays and 9am-6pm on Saturdays from 30 min to 15 min to meet HFN standards X X 63 UrbLoc Extend route from Summit/Cretin to Univ/Emerald LRT Station via Cretin Ave and Desnoyer Park neighborhood. Offpeak freq improved from 30 min to 15 min on weekdays, from 30 min to 20 min on Saturday, and from 60 min to X X X min on Sunday. 65 UrbLoc Improve WK freq from 30 min to 15 min and weekend freq from 60 min to 30 min. Reroute south of Lake St to Grand Ave X X X 67 UrbLoc Extend route south of University Ave via Fairview Ave, Ford Pkwy to Highland Village. Provide Highland Park connection to CCLRT. Improve WK freq between 6am-7pm from 30 min to 15 min, weekend freq from between 9am- 6pm from 60 min to 30 min. Widen span to start at 5am on SAT and 6am on SUN X X X 68 UrbLoc Improve freq between 14th/Jackson and 5th Ave/South St in South St Paul to 15 min between 6am-7pm on WK and between 9am-6pm on SAT X X 74 UrbLoc Freq between Stillwater Ave/Nokomis Ave and 46th St LRT Station will be improved to 15 min between 6am-7pm (weekday) or 9am-6pm (Saturday) to meet HFN standards X X 80 UrbLoc Improve freq to 30 min between 6:30am-9:30pm on WK, 6:30am-7:30pm on SAT, and 6:30am-7:30pm on SUN. Widen weekend span X X 83 UrbLoc New route via W. 7th/Otto to Rosedale via Lexington, Hamline Ave to connect with LRT. 15 min peak/30 min offpeak 2014 on WK and SAT. 6am-11:30pm WK and 7am-7pm SAT span of service. X X X Appendix B-1

31 Provider Route 84 UrbLoc 87 UrbLoc 110 UrbLoc 250 Route Type Description New Arterial BRT limited stop and shortline between Como and Edgecumbe. Improve freq to 10 min during peak periods and to 15 min in the midday and Saturday. Improve freq from 30 min to 15 min on Sunday. Ltd stop span of service is 6am-1am. Local service remains at 30 min freq. Add weekday evening service between 7pm-11:30pm at 90 min freq to serve St. Paul campus night classes. Add Saturday service every 30 min between 7am-7pm. New U of M-Longfellow direct service via 46th Ave, 42nd St, 34th St, 36th Ave, 25th St, 27th Ave, Franklin Ave, Riverside Ave, Washington Ave. 3 peak period trips. Increase peak and midday service for P&R expansion of 500 spaces, which opened in Peak period freq will increase from 5-8 min to 3-5 min, and two midday trips will be added to provide 90 min midday freq. Year Increase Capacity to Meet Growing Demand Improve Connectivity and Coverage Develop New Markets Increase Service Quality 2014 X X 2014 X X X 2014 X X 2014 X X 270 Add 3 AM and 3 PM trips between Maplewood Mall and downtown Minneapolis (bypass Co C) for P&R growth X X 275 Add 4AM and 4PM trips to travel between downtown St Paul and new 35E/Co Rd 14 park and ride. Redirect current resources to travel between downtown St Paul and new 35E/Co Rd E park and ride in Vadnais Heights. Close Cub Foods Park and Ride X X X 376 New Manning Ave P&R.-Minneapolis express. Ten round trips per CMAQ grant-four funded by grant X X 386 New Manning Ave P&R.-St. Paul express. Four round trips per CMAQ grant X X 515 SubLoc 535 UrbLoc Improve WK and SAT evening freq to 15 min until 9:30PM (Southdale) to meet increased demand. SUNDAY: Improve freq from min to 15 min from 11am-6pm(Southdale). Operate added trips via Longfellow Ave or VAMC Orange Line 35W South BRT Service. Extend service to Burnsville TS. Separate the existing 535 service to Knox P&R and Best Buy. Replace Route 146 with 7.5 min freq on Route 46 and Route 535. Weekend: 30 min freq 6am-10pm X X 2016 X X X 587 Additional trips for new Edina P&R near Hwy 100/Eden. New branch via Vernon Ave and Lincoln Dr to replace Route X 673 Improve service for 2006 P&R expansion, widen peak span. Deferred CMAQ grant. Add 4 AM and 4 PM trips at fringe 2015 of peak. X X 674 Extend route to serve new Maple Plain Hwy 12 Park and Ride. CMAQ application. Four new trips each peak period serving Maple Plain. Improve freq in Long Lake and Wayzata X X 675 East of Ridgedale, improve midday and early evening freq from 30 min to 15 min. Improve fringe of peak freq from 30 min to 15 min X X 721 SubLoc Increase service from 60 min to 30 min between 9am-4pm X 723 SubLoc Improve frequency from 60 min to 30 min between 6am-8pm to meet growing demand for service to North Hennepin Community College X X 766 Increase service for Noble P&R expansion/relocation. Add 8 SB and 8 NB trips to improve freq from 10 min to 7.5 min X X New Arterial BRT limited stop service on the east side of St. Paul via E. 7th, Arcade, Maryland and White Bear Ave to 54 E. 7th St UrbLoc Maplewood Mall. 15 min freq on WK between 6am-10pm, on SAT between 7am-10pm. SUN freq at 30 min between 2014 X X 7am-10pm. 54 W. 7th St UrbLoc Improve W. 7th St. Arterial BRT span and freq and connect with new limited stop service on the east side of St. Paul. Improve WK freq from 15 min to 7.5 min during peak X X Met Council Red Line BRT UrbLoc Provide all-day, BRT service at 15 min frequency during the week and 30-min frequency on weekends between AVTS 2012 and Mall of America Stations. X X X BlueXpress 490 Expansion of existing Route 490 to serve Marschall Road Station using 3 coach buses. A bus-only ramp from the station to US Highway 169 will be constructed to facilitate the express service. Some trips may serve U of M and a midday trip may be added. New buses may also enhance reverse commute express service X X X X LRT Green Line LRT LRT service replaces Route 50 and most of Route X X X X Maple Grove 785 Add express trips ( 4 inbound and 5 outbound) to the existing Route 785 to increase frequency and span of service. This corresponds with Parkway Station Phase 2 which adds 210 spaces and has been approved for final design. Appendix B X X

32 Provider Route Route Type Description Year Increase Capacity to Meet Growing Demand Improve Connectivity and Coverage Add new express route serving the southwest and south portions of Maple Grove primariliy operating along Bass Maple Grove X X X Lake Road to serve new p&r at 494/Bass Lake. Maple Grove 788B SubLoc New feeder rooute with timed transfer to the Route 780 at the Shepherd of the Grove church X X Maple Grove DAR Dial-a-ride Add 16 hours/2 vehicles of weekday MG Dial-A-Ride service 2013 X X 421 SubLoc Increase service span between 6am-6pm to 60 min on flex route in Burnsville and Savage X X X 440 SubLoc Improve freq from 90 min to 60 min all day X 446 SubLoc Expand weekday local service to 60 min base and peak, 30 min reverse-peak. Widen span? 2012 X X Implement new Route 471 between Cedar Grove-downtown Mpls with 12 trips. Add 4 trips on existing Route 475 Cedar BRT between Cedar Grove, downtown Mpls and U of M midday. Eliminate 2 trips on route 472 (as well as shortening of X X other trips). Cedar BRT First part of Stage 2 expansion for Cedar BRT. Add trips on Routes 471, 475, 476 and 477 to compliment station-tostation service. Reduce freq by one-third. Stage II 2015 X X X X Cedar BRT Local SubLoc Expand weekday local feeder service in the Cedar Avenue corridor to implement the Cedar Avenue way IPU. 60 min freq-maybe 30 min freq in peak? 2012 X X Cedar BRT Local Stage II SubLoc First part of Stage 2 weekday local expansion for Cedar BRT project. 60 min freq-maybe some 30 min during peak? 2016 X X X X Cedar BRT Local Stage II weekend SubLoc I-35W Local Coverage SubLoc Rosemount St Paul Sunday SubLoc First part of Stage 2 weekend local/feeder expansion for Cedar BRT project. 60 min freq. Add weekend service to some existing weekday routes, as well as possible new services. Provide funding for the new services that will begin in 2013 under an approved CMAQ grant. Improve existing Routes 464 and 465, including a new, more direct express route serving Savage Park & Ride. Improve freq on Route 464 from 30 min peak to min with a faster schedule. Improve freq on Route 465 from 30 min peak/60 min offpeak to 15 min peak/30 min off-peak. Expand local routes to areas not currently served to meet 's Service Investment Strategies. Assessment and prioritization needed. 60 min freq likely. Increase frequency and span of Weekday service between Rosemount and downtown Minneapolis as described in the approved CMAQ project application. Improve service from 2 trips each dir to 30 min peak period/15 min peak half-hour. Increase freq and span of weekday Routes 480 and 484 per approved CMAQ application. Current freq is 30 min on Route 484 and 30 min on each Route 480 branch. Add 15 min peak-of-peak trunk freq from Blackhawk P&R and Eagan Center. Expand Sunday local service to level equal to current Saturday service. Add service on Route 441 and extend span on Routes 444 and min freq proposed. Develop New Markets Increase Service Quality 2015 X X X 2013 X X 2015 X X 2013 X X X X 2014 X X 2013 X X X Plymouth 772 Increase service from 30 minutes to 15 minutes during am and pm peak period X X X Plymouth 776 Increase service from 30 minutes to 15 minutes during am and pm peak period X X X Plymouth 790 Increase service from 20 minutes to 10 minutes during am and pm peak period X X X Southwest 169 Service New express service to downtown Mpls and U of M from new 300 stall park and ride at Pioneer Trl/Hennepin Townline Rd (near US 169) in Eden Prairie. 30 min AM peak freq, one midday and evening trip, 15 min PM peak freq. Other services could include rev comm service to Golden Triangle and suburban circulator if warranted by demand. CMAQ application X X X X Appendix B-3

33 Regional Service Improvement Plan Projects Proposed Additional Weekday Current Weekday Provider2 Route Year In-Service Hours Platform Hours Trips Peak vehicles Ave Daily Rides Cost Fare per pass Fare Revenue Subsidy Subsidy /Pass PPISH In-Service Hours Platform Hours Trips Peak vehicles Ave Daily Rides Cost Fare per pass Fare Revenue Subsidy Subsidy /Pass PPISH ,264 $2,132 $0.80 $1,011 $1,120 $ ,190 $15,707 $0.80 $6,552 $9,155 $ ,200 $4,996 $0.80 $960 $4,036 $ ,279 $28,500 $0.80 $8,223 $20,277 $ $111 $1.09 $22 $89 $ ,833 $25,357 $1.09 $7,448 $17,909 $ ,076 $10,991 $0.76 $1,578 $9,413 $ ,673 $40,589 $0.76 $12,671 $27,917 $ $2,664 $0.88 $704 $1,960 $ ,336 $24,646 $0.88 $7,336 $17,311 $ $2,309 $1.04 $572 $1,737 $ ,062 $14,105 $1.04 $4,224 $9,881 $ $1,332 $0.87 $348 $984 $ ,177 $22,399 $0.87 $5,374 $17,025 $ $2,664 $0.88 $475 $2,189 $ ,764 $8,685 $0.88 $1,552 $7,133 $ $3,109 $1.12 $753 $2,356 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ ,100 $9,992 $1.02 $2,142 $7,850 $ ,192 $14,666 $0.93 $3,899 $10,767 $ $2,887 $0.90 $702 $2,185 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ $3,664 $0.92 $662 $3,001 $ ,707 $11,763 $1.02 $2,761 $9,001 $ $3,997 $0.98 $706 $3,291 $ ,529 $6,667 $0.90 $1,376 $5,291 $ ,336 $10,025 $0.99 $2,313 $7,712 $ ,259 $14,224 $0.92 $3,918 $10,306 $ $2,831 $0.96 $653 $2,178 $ ,314 $5,493 $0.98 $1,288 $4,206 $ $1,221 $0.89 $249 $972 $ ,724 $7,886 $0.99 $1,707 $6,179 $ $1,221 $0.91 $240 $981 $ ,263 $12,819 $0.96 $3,132 $9,687 $ ,290 $7,161 $1.12 $1,445 $5,716 $ ,024 $18,055 $0.89 $4,471 $13,584 $ ,419 $4,774 $0.76 $1,078 $3,695 $ $1,184 $0.91 $405 $779 $ $500 $1.12 $101 $399 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ $666 $1.33 $271 $395 $ ,977 $14,743 $0.76 $3,023 $11,721 $ ,244 $4,685 $1.10 $1,368 $3,317 $ $1,139 $1.12 $851 $287 $ E. 7th St ,436 $9,215 $0.93 $1,335 $7,879 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ W. 7th St $4,552 $0.93 $777 $3,775 $ ,973 $9,367 $2.54 $5,011 $4,355 $ Met Council Red Line BRT ,373 $6,911 $1.03 $1,414 $5,496 $ ,310 $6,062 $2.56 $3,354 $2,708 $ $446 $1.26 $55 $390 $ $598 $2.31 $483 $115 $ $603 $1.74 $75 $528 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ $193 $1.26 $24 $169 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ $444 $0.82 $98 $346 $ ,810 $9,357 $0.82 $1,484 $7,873 $ $888 $0.89 $200 $688 $ ,338 $8,726 $1.10 $1,472 $7,254 $ $2,154 $0.92 $373 $1,781 $ $1,765 $2.57 $812 $953 $ Maple Grove 788B $268 $0.00 $0 $268 $ $2,037 $2.48 $1,486 $552 $ Cedar BRT Local $418 $1.26 $69 $349 $ $944 $2.51 $324 $620 $ Cedar BRT Local Stage II $4,415 $2.75 $730 $3,685 $ ,551 $8,685 $1.64 $2,544 $6,141 $ Local Coverage 2015 Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk $741 $0.89 $559 $182 $ Sunday $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ $527 $0.88 $480 $48 $ $3,264 $2.54 $1,270 $1,994 $ ,150 $9,207 $2.31 $4,967 $4,240 $ $999 $2.56 $614 $385 $ $1,911 $2.53 $1,354 $557 $ $1,010 $2.31 $554 $456 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ $1,998 $2.50 $1,350 $648 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ $1,610 $2.28 $593 $1,017 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ BlueXpress $3,075 $2.73 $983 $2,092 $ $437 $1.26 $17 $420 $ $1,132 $2.57 $591 $541 $ $1,610 $1.74 $64 $1,546 $ $888 $2.48 $496 $392 $ $2,819 $1.26 $218 $2,601 $ $1,499 $2.51 $336 $1,162 $ $2,786 $2.25 $1,026 $1,760 $ $3,886 $1.64 $1,164 $2,721 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ $1,876 $2.31 $1,478 $398 $ $2,239 $2.75 $555 $1,684 $ Plymouth $771 $2.44 $244 $527 $ $418 $2.75 $69 $349 $ Plymouth $825 $2.60 $260 $565 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ Maple Grove $1,063 $2.53 $620 $443 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ Maple Grove $1,122 $2.53 $607 $515 $ $772 $2.75 $110 $662 $ Plymouth $1,680 $2.54 $533 $1,147 $ $3,567 $2.75 $1,818 $1,749 $ Southwest 169 Service $4,292 $2.86 $1,767 $2,524 $ $1,116 $2.44 $737 $379 $ Cedar BRT $1,657 $2.25 $411 $1,246 $ $1,940 $2.60 $835 $1,105 $ Cedar BRT 2015 Stage II $4,168 $2.75 $1,033 $3,134 $ $2,252 $2.54 $1,252 $1,000 $ I-35W $5,133 $2.33 $1,710 $3,423 $ $5,125 $2.73 $1,796 $3,329 $ Rosemount $1,386 $2.75 $573 $813 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ St Paul $1,737 $2.75 $789 $947 $ ,559 $47,705 $0.77 $18,140 $29,565 $ LRT Green Line ,390 $0.77 $24, ,559 $47,705 $0.77 $18,140 $29,565 $ Maple Grove DAR NA 2 48 $741 $2.00 $96 $645 $ NA $1,969 $2.00 $256 $1,713 $ Total ,398 $160,250 $1.03 $66,518 $118,672 $ Unk.= Unknown, not able to determined based on the project documentation form or to be determined at a future date Appendix B-4

34 Regional Service Improvement Plan Projects-Saturdays In-Service Platform Wk Equiv Platform Ave Daily Fare per Fare Subsidy In-Service Platform Wk Equiv Platform Ave Daily Fare per Subsidy Provider2 Route Year Hours Hours Hours Trips Rides Cost pass Revenue Subsidy /Pass PPISH Hours Hours Hours Trips Rides Cost pass Fare Revenue Subsidy /Pass PPISH ,167 $4,452 $0.75 $1,625 $2,827 $ ,747 $9,494 $0.75 $2,810 $6,684 $ ,440 $4,496 $0.89 $1,282 $3,215 $ ,312 $10,099 $0.89 $2,948 $7,152 $ ,819 $9,659 $0.74 $1,346 $8,313 $ ,015 $33,628 $0.74 $8,151 $25,477 $ $2,998 $0.79 $425 $2,573 $ ,383 $15,162 $0.79 $4,253 $10,909 $ $3,109 $0.86 $447 $2,661 $ ,354 $10,380 $0.86 $2,024 $8,356 $ $2,664 $0.77 $270 $2,395 $ ,210 $15,738 $0.77 $3,242 $12,496 $ $2,076 $0.84 $282 $1,794 $ ,072 $6,311 $0.84 $900 $5,411 $ E. 7th St ,259 $8,104 $0.83 $1,045 $7,059 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ $960 $0.90 $495 $465 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ $4,829 $0.89 $645 $4,184 $ $4,818 $0.89 $797 $4,021 $ $1,998 $0.72 $389 $1,610 $ ,205 $4,785 $0.72 $868 $3,917 $ $2,664 $0.81 $365 $2,300 $ ,440 $9,825 $0.81 $1,976 $7,849 $ $1,332 $0.93 $335 $997 $ $1,291 $0.93 $225 $1,066 $ ,170 $6,595 $0.84 $983 $5,612 $ $3,006 $0.84 $491 $2,516 $ $2,920 $0.87 $609 $2,311 $ ,051 $8,423 $0.87 $1,784 $6,639 $ ,260 $4,996 $0.75 $945 $4,051 $ ,186 $14,216 $0.75 $2,390 $11,827 $ $485 $0.80 $96 $389 $ $1,309 $0.80 $214 $1,095 $ $1,440 $0.90 $648 $792 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ ,246 $3,886 $0.75 $935 $2,951 $ ,697 $11,655 $0.75 $2,773 $8,882 $ $1,440 $0.90 $450 $990 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ $222 $0.77 $46 $176 $ ,628 $7,966 $0.77 $1,254 $6,712 $ Met Council Red Line BRT $3,254 $1.03 $743 $2,511 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ Cedar BRT Local Stage II weekend Proposed Additional Saturday $1,160 $2.65 $240 $920 $ ,263 $8,587 $2.65 $867 $7,720 $ Local Coverage 2015 Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ LRT Green Line ,519 $60,308 $0.67 $11,068 $49,240 $ ,082 $25,934 $0.67 $8,095 $17,839 $ Total ,154 $136,048 $0.75 $25,712 $110,336 $ Unk.= Unknown, not able to determined based on the project documentation form or to be determined at a future date Current Saturday Regional Service Improvement Plan Projects-Sundays In-Service Platform Wk Equiv Platform Ave Daily Fare per Fare Subsidy In-Service Platform Wk Equiv Platform Ave Daily Fare per Subsidy Provider2 Route Year Hours Hours Hours Trips Rides Cost pass Revenue Subsidy /Pass PPISH Hours Hours Hours Trips Rides Cost pass Fare Revenue Subsidy /Pass PPISH ,455 $5,618 $0.82 $2,013 $3,605 $ ,534 $8,099 $0.82 $2,078 $6,021 $ $3,997 $0.79 $711 $3,286 $ ,200 $7,791 $0.79 $1,738 $6,053 $ $1,110 $0.95 $190 $920 $ ,520 $11,604 $0.95 $2,394 $9,210 $ ,087 $5,773 $0.75 $815 $4,958 $ ,688 $24,458 $0.75 $5,766 $18,692 $ $2,664 $0.79 $356 $2,309 $ ,530 $10,547 $0.79 $2,789 $7,758 $ $3,242 $0.76 $696 $2,546 $ ,620 $7,151 $0.76 $1,991 $5,160 $ $3,331 $0.77 $254 $3,077 $ ,996 $12,812 $0.77 $2,307 $10,505 $ $1,699 $0.82 $226 $1,472 $ $6,414 $0.82 $666 $5,748 $ E. 7th St $4,885 $0.93 $699 $4,186 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ $960 $0.90 $450 $510 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ $4,829 $0.89 $645 $4,184 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ $2,498 $0.84 $378 $2,120 $ ,236 $4,163 $0.84 $1,038 $3,125 $ $1,776 $0.96 $307 $1,469 $ $847 $0.96 $124 $723 $ $4,685 $0.84 $702 $3,983 $ $2,235 $0.84 $287 $1,948 $ $1,552 $0.88 $225 $1,327 $ $623 $0.88 $129 $494 $ $2,887 $0.81 $603 $2,283 $ ,855 $5,673 $0.81 $1,503 $4,171 $ $4,030 $2.67 $2,136 $1,894 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ Met Council Red Line BRT $3,254 $1.03 $666 $2,588 $ $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $ $833 $0.74 $155 $677 $ ,002 $5,437 $0.74 $741 $4,695 $ Cedar BRT Local Stage II weekend Proposed Additional Sunday $1,040 $2.65 $215 $825 $ ,146 $7,033 $2.65 $970 $6,063 $ Local Coverage 2015 Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Sunday $2,399 $1.25 $496 $1,903 $ $4,634 $1.25 $474 $4,160 $ LRT Green Line ,717 $58,951 $0.70 $6,802 $52,149 $ ,110 $16,964 $0.70 $4,977 $11,987 $ Total ,067 $122,012 $0.86 $19,743 $102,269 $ Unk.= Unknown, not able to determined based on the project documentation form or to be determined at a future date Sunday Existing Appendix B-5

35 Regional Service Improvement Plan Projects-Annual Provider2 Route Year In-Service Hours Platform Hours Trips Ridership Cost Fare Rev Subsidy Subsidy /Pass PPISH In-Service Hours Platform Hours Trips Ridership Cost Fare Rev Subsidy Subsidy /Pass PPISH ,754 9,916 27, ,394 $ 1,100,874 $ 459,129 $ 641,746 $ ,253 44,763 49,672 2,430,266 $4,969,533 $1,937,410 $3,032,123 $ ,048 15,669 19, ,080 $ 1,739,572 $ 352,681 $ 1,386,891 $ ,145 74,251 66,801 2,920,969 $8,243,291 $2,350,999 $5,892,292 $ ,598 16,700 $ 92,702 $ 16,579 $ 76,123 $ ,343 73,798 48,990 2,106,923 $8,193,076 $2,254,249 $5,938,827 $ ,228 32,785 39, ,014 $ 3,639,791 $ 519,608 $ 3,120,182 $ , ,756 83,018 5,270,299 $13,517,373 $3,989,513 $9,527,861 $ ,660 8,916 12, ,076 $ 989,854 $ 222,240 $ 767,614 $ ,171 69,218 59,684 2,610,336 $7,684,582 $2,253,477 $5,431,106 $ ,276 6,760 6, ,290 $ 750,495 $ 169,114 $ 581,381 $ ,466 42,168 32,358 1,248,698 $4,681,458 $1,266,660 $3,414,798 $ ,293 1,694 1,914 53,128 $ 188,023 $ 40,377 $ 147,646 $ ,391 46,524 52,640 1,824,542 $5,165,072 $1,518,155 $3,646,917 $ ,045 6,048 5, ,340 $ 671,449 $ 117,492 $ 553,957 $ ,188 65,526 39,717 1,967,823 $7,274,674 $1,672,737 $5,601,937 $ ,907 7,980 11, ,180 $ 885,917 $ 148,979 $ 736,938 $ ,945 26,252 31, ,660 $2,914,519 $481,285 $2,433,234 $ ,127 9,780 19, ,960 $ 391,200 $ 243,763 $ 147,437 $ $0 $0 $0 $ ,590 27,735 18, ,250 $ 3,079,140 $ 617,188 $ 2,461,952 $ ,798 29,287 20, ,877 $3,251,421 $745,558 $2,505,863 $ ,220 7,566 15, ,980 $ 839,977 $ 199,228 $ 640,750 $ ,840 18,692 24, ,079 $2,075,175 $423,175 $1,652,000 $ ,557 10,968 8, ,100 $ 1,217,667 $ 209,790 $ 1,007,877 $ ,138 39,443 33,731 1,284,613 $4,378,906 $1,162,152 $3,216,754 $ ,269 10,732 15, ,880 $ 1,191,467 $ 215,155 $ 976,311 $ ,310 13,667 16, ,136 $1,517,255 $347,254 $1,170,000 $ ,767 28,563 20, ,008 $ 3,171,053 $ 681,559 $ 2,489,494 $ ,400 20,669 19, ,824 $2,294,672 $477,395 $1,817,277 $ ,916 7,870 10, ,800 $ 873,739 $ 198,132 $ 675,607 $ ,361 36,943 29,665 1,025,601 $4,101,356 $963,683 $3,137,673 $ ,945 5,145 3, ,920 $ 571,198 $ 112,686 $ 458,512 $ ,079 53,054 39,982 1,562,908 $5,890,077 $1,350,377 $4,539,701 $ ,979 3,993 7,986 88,408 $ 387,321 $ 79,319 $ 308,002 $ ,769 7,526 13, ,937 $729,974 $121,914 $608,060 $ ,024 18,320 24, ,390 $ 732,780 $ 402,120 $ 330,660 $ $0 $0 $0 $ ,434 14,293 29, ,847 $ 1,586,809 $ 358,596 $ 1,228,213 $ ,131 43,587 50,026 1,284,425 $4,839,051 $979,157 $3,859,894 $ ,405 3,020 4,026 48,950 $ 120,780 $ 49,104 $ 71,676 $ ,058 10,506 13, ,800 $420,240 $217,056 $203,184 $ ,530 1,530 52,020 $ 169,861 $ 69,187 $ 100,674 $ $0 $0 $0 $ ,587 16,360 27, ,820 $ 1,637,989 $ 590,844 $ 1,047,145 $ ,031 20,043 19, ,190 $2,225,174 $375,309 $1,849,865 $ E. 7th St ,010 27,513 17, ,264 $ 3,054,493 $ 435,449 $ 2,619,045 $ $0 $0 $0 $ W. 7th St ,364 10,455 13, ,925 $ 1,160,714 $ 198,020 $ 962,694 $ ,457 43,470 50,026 1,378,370 $4,826,051 $1,264,324 $3,561,727 $ Met Council Red Line BRT ,439 22,900 17, ,133 $ 2,120,173 $ 437,887 $ 1,682,286 $ $0 $0 $0 $ ,067 1,577 2,805 11,220 $ 113,665 $ 14,090 $ 99,575 $ ,173 1,670 3,060 4,845 $111,432 $4,270 $107,162 $ ,471 2,355 1,785 10,965 $ 153,714 $ 19,056 $ 134,659 $ ,608 4,658 4,335 17,595 $410,586 $16,374 $394,213 $ ,845 $ 49,316 $ 6,114 $ 43,203 $ ,459 10,179 9,435 68,085 $718,314 $55,715 $662,599 $ ,205 1,559 3,060 45,900 $ 173,080 $ 36,508 $ 136,573 $ ,800 28,072 43, ,322 $3,116,565 $486,662 $2,629,903 $ ,428 2,040 3,825 57,375 $ 87,720 $ 51,064 $ 36,656 $ ,897 8,479 11, ,570 $364,580 $159,377 $205,203 $ ,545 4,947 7, ,275 $ 212,721 $ 95,013 $ 117,708 $ ,488 6,050 10, ,812 $260,133 $148,249 $111,884 $ Maple Grove 788B ,040 34,425 $ 68,344 $ - $ 68,344 $ $0 $0 $0 $ Cedar BRT Local ,071 1,530 1,530 14,025 $ 106,653 $ 17,629 $ 89,025 $ $0 $0 $0 $ Cedar BRT Local Stage II ,353 14,790 15,555 67,575 $ 1,125,840 $ 186,089 $ 939,751 $ ,071 1,530 1,530 14,025 $106,653 $17,629 $89,025 $ Cedar BRT Local Stage II weekend Proposed Additional Annual ,364 1,760 1,650 9,240 $ 120,640 $ 24,950 $ 95,690 $ ,872 9,021 8, ,144 $854,422 $101,357 $753,065 $ Local Coverage 2015 Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk $0 $0 $0 $ Sunday ,085 1,543 1,508 23,838 $ 139,142 $ 28,768 $ 110,374 $ ,540 3,213 2,900 42,630 $268,771 $27,512 $241,259 $ ,029 7,497 5, ,500 $ 832,317 $ 323,850 $ 508,467 $ ,761 21,522 15, ,115 $2,389,372 $1,277,912 $1,111,460 $ ,250 2,295 1,530 61,200 $ 254,791 $ 156,672 $ 98,119 $ ,344 13,923 9, ,050 $1,545,731 $855,168 $690,563 $ ,403 2,321 2,040 61,200 $ 257,576 $ 141,372 $ 116,204 $ ,377 2,601 1,785 53,295 $288,711 $123,111 $165,600 $ ,219 4,590 3, ,700 $ 509,582 $ 344,250 $ 165,332 $ $0 $0 $0 $ ,785 3,698 2,040 66,300 $ 410,496 $ 151,164 $ 259,332 $ $0 $0 $0 $ BlueXpress ,889 9,563 3,060 91,800 $ 784,125 $ 250,614 $ 533,511 $ ,225 15,938 7, ,790 $1,306,875 $458,067 $848,808 $ ,428 2,601 2,040 58,650 $ 288,763 $ 150,731 $ 138,033 $ ,244 4,106 3,060 80,580 $616,613 $207,091 $409,522 $ ,428 2,040 4,080 51,000 $ 226,481 $ 126,480 $ 100,001 $ ,035 4,692 6, ,745 $520,906 $378,808 $142,098 $ ,142 3,443 2,040 34,170 $ 382,186 $ 85,767 $ 296,420 $ ,352 2,168 1,530 32,895 $240,636 $82,566 $158,069 $ ,860 8,925 8, ,050 $ 990,854 $ 296,922 $ 693,932 $ ,386 22,846 17, ,441 $2,536,385 $694,330 $1,842,055 $ ,040 4,310 4, ,200 $ 478,441 $ 376,992 $ 101,449 $ ,342 21,140 17, ,250 $2,346,907 $1,266,458 $1,080,450 $ Plymouth ,484 1,484 3,060 25,500 $ 196,658 $ 62,220 $ 134,438 $ ,147 2,147 3,315 77,010 $284,512 $187,904 $96,608 $ Plymouth ,556 1,556 2,550 25,500 $ 210,319 $ 66,300 $ 144,019 $ ,659 3,659 3,570 81,855 $494,767 $212,823 $281,944 $ Maple Grove ,377 2,729 2,295 62,475 $ 271,067 $ 158,061 $ 113,006 $ ,346 4,692 3, ,425 $487,287 $345,155 $142,132 $ Maple Grove ,497 2,984 2,040 61,200 $ 286,102 $ 154,836 $ 131,266 $ $0 $0 $0 $ Plymouth ,815 2,815 4,590 53,550 $ 428,445 $ 136,017 $ 292,428 $ ,774 3,774 5, ,715 $574,365 $319,316 $255,049 $ Southwest 169 Service ,373 8,803 5, ,590 $ 1,094,427 $ 450,707 $ 643,720 $ $0 $0 $0 $ Cedar BRT ,474 4,675 3,570 46,665 $ 422,553 $ 104,765 $ 317,788 $ ,781 9,541 6, ,830 $710,412 $261,556 $448,856 $ Cedar BRT 2015 Stage II 6,554 11,475 8,415 95,880 $ 1,062,757 $ 263,494 $ 799,264 $ ,774 6,630 4,845 62,985 $571,015 $141,574 $429,441 $ I-35W ,976 15,759 11, ,425 $ 1,308,962 $ 436,000 $ 872,962 $ $0 $0 $0 $ Rosemount ,951 3,655 2,040 53,040 $ 353,406 $ 146,035 $ 207,370 $ ,003 1,815 1,020 11,730 $196,813 $28,164 $168,649 $ St Paul ,491 4,913 3,060 73,185 $ 442,855 $ 201,298 $ 241,557 $ ,245 9,269 5, ,975 $909,562 $463,690 $445,872 $ LRT Green Line ,643 66,726 79,270 9,682,024 $ 23,220,444 $ 7,329,809 $ 15,890,635 $ , , ,801 7,048,189 $14,497,336 $5,335,413 $9,161,923 $ Maple Grove DAR ,080 4,080 NA 12,240 $ 189,067 $ 24,480 $ 164,587 $ ,838 10,838 NA 32,640 $502,210 $65,280 $436,930 $ Total 392, , ,024 19,579,584 $ 69,618,549 $ 19,562,342 $ 50,056,207 $ Unk.= Unknown, not able to determined based on the project documentation form or to be determined at a future date Annual Existing Appendix B-6

36 APPENDIX C Map of Projects

37 Anoka Marine on St. Croix Rogers Twin Cities Regional Service Improvement Plan Dayton Hassan Twp. Champlin Coon Rapids Centerville Blaine Lino Lakes Hugo May Twp. Hanover Lexington Circle Pines Corcoran Osseo Maple Grove Spring Lake Park Brooklyn Park White Bear Twp. Mounds View Greenfield Stillwater Twp. North Oaks Dellwood Rockford Fridley B Shoreview 721 Grant Arden Hills Brooklyn Center White Bear Twp. New Brighton White Bear Lake Gem Lake Vadnais Heights Loretto Hilltop New Hope Medina 19 Crystal Pine Springs 10 Robbinsdale Plymouth Maple Plain 5 Little Canada Roseville North St. Paul Baytown Twp. 54E 22 Medicine Lake Bayport Maplewood Oak Park Heights 270 St. Anthony Stillwater Columbia Heights 776 Independence Mahtomedi Birchwood Village Willernie Lauderdale 61 Falcon Heights Golden Valley 87 Long Lake Lake Elmo Oakdale Wayzata Orono West Lakeland Twp Minneapolis 4 Woodland St. Louis Park 60 Mound Deephaven 23 Minnetonka Lakeland Shores Lakeland 74 Tonka Bay Lake St. Croix Beach 22 Greenwood Shorewood Hopkins St. Bonifacius 376 Landfall St. Paul 63 Minnetonka Beach Spring675 Park Minnetrista St. Marys Point 535 Lilydale Woodbury 54W Excelsior West St. Paul Edina Note: RSIP items not shown on map include: - MGT Dial-a-Ride Service 68St. Paul South Mendota 515 Fort Snelling (unorg.) Afton Mendota Heights Richfield Newport Sunfish Lake Victoria 475 Chanhassen Eden Prairie Waconia Laketown Twp. 445 Orange Line BRT Red Line BRT SW Cottage Grove Denmark Twp. 471 Grey Cloud Island Twp Shakopee Suburban Local STS 464 Jackson Twp. 440 Burnsville Dahlgren Twp. Carver 444 Savage 421 Rapid Bus/Arterial BRT 480 Louisville Twp Apple Valley 476 Hastings 420 Green Line LRT San Francisco Twp. Nininger Twp. Rosemount 465 Prior Lake Inver Grove Heights Eagan Chaska Urban Local St. Paul Park Bloomington Ravenna Twp. Sand Creek Twp. Spring Lake Twp.Spring Lake Twp. Credit River Twp. Lakeville 477 Coates Empire Twp. Vermillion Twp. Marshan Twp. Marshan Twp.

38 APPENDIX D Project Rank by Evaluation Factor

39 SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER Weekday Saturday Sunday System Average Urban Local $ 2.44 $ 2.91 $ 3.13 Suburban Local $ 4.63 $ 4.17 $ 4.25 $ 3.06 $ 4.65 $ % of Route Average Urban Local $ 4.76 $ 5.36 $ 5.60 Suburban Local $ $ 7.67 $ 5.82 $ 7.33 $ 7.67 $ 7.67 When scores for Weekday, Saturday, and Sunday are different, overall score is generally the weekday score. If weekday score is lower than Saturday, Sunday, but is close to the threshold, overall score may be same as Saturday or Sunday. Subsidy Score Provider Route RouteType Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual Weekday Saturday Sunday Overall 2 UrbLoc $0.89 $1.30 $1.47 $1.11 High High High High 3 UrbLoc $3.36 $2.23 $3.65 $3.20 Medium High Medium Medium 4 UrbLoc $4.46 $0.00 $4.60 $4.56 Medium High Medium Medium 5 UrbLoc $4.53 $4.57 $4.56 $4.54 Medium Medium Medium Medium 10 UrbLoc $2.45 $4.78 $5.13 $2.97 Medium Medium Medium Medium 11 UrbLoc $3.16 $ $3.48 Medium Medium Low Medium 19 UrbLoc $2.78 $ High High 22 UrbLoc $2.46 $6.84 $9.32 $3.98 Medium Low Low Medium 23 UrbLoc $4.05 $5.34 $5.33 $4.31 Medium Medium Medium Medium 60 UrbLoc $0.55 $0.85 $1.02 $0.64 High High High High 61 UrbLoc $3.74 $5.77 $5.77 $4.00 Medium Low Low Medium 62 UrbLoc $2.80 $ $2.82 Medium Medium --- Medium 63 UrbLoc $4.17 $5.11 $4.71 $4.32 Medium Medium Medium Medium 65 UrbLoc $4.57 $2.77 $4.59 $4.42 Medium High Medium Medium 67 UrbLoc $3.30 $4.80 $4.76 $3.53 Medium Medium Medium Medium 68 UrbLoc $3.20 $ $3.22 Medium Medium --- Medium 74 UrbLoc $3.47 $ $3.35 Medium Medium --- Medium 80 UrbLoc $3.13 $3.24 $5.18 $3.48 Medium Medium Medium Medium 83 UrbLoc $0.88 $ $0.90 High High --- High 84 UrbLoc $2.60 $2.37 $3.06 $2.61 Medium High High High 87 UrbLoc $0.88 $ $1.46 High High --- High 110 UrbLoc $ $1.94 High High 535 UrbLoc $2.67 $2.07 $2.37 $2.57 Medium High High High 54 E. 7th St UrbLoc $5.49 $5.61 $5.57 $5.51 Low Low Medium Low 54 W. 7th St UrbLoc $ $4.52 Medium Medium Met Council Red Line BRT UrbLoc $4.00 $3.48 $4.00 $3.93 Medium Medium Medium Medium 421 SubLoc $ $8.87 Medium Medium 440 SubLoc $ $12.28 Low Low 446 SubLoc $ $8.92 Medium Medium 515 SubLoc $2.88 $2.93 $3.23 $2.98 High High High High 721 SubLoc $ $0.64 High High 723 SubLoc $ $1.14 High High Maple Grove 788B SubLoc $ $1.99 High High Cedar BRT Local Subsidy SubLoc $ $6.35 Medium Medium Appendix D-1

40 Provider Route RouteType Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual Weekday Saturday Sunday Overall Cedar BRT Local Stage II SubLoc $ $13.91 Low Cedar BRT Local Stage II SubLoc --- $10.95 $9.82 $ weekend Low Low Low Local SubLoc Coverage Low Sunday SubLoc $4.63 $ Medium Medium 250 $ $3.99 Medium Medium 270 $ $1.60 High High 275 $ $1.90 High High 376 $ $1.20 High High 386 $ $3.91 Medium Medium BlueXpress 490 $ $5.81 Medium Medium 587 $ $2.35 High High 673 $ $1.96 High High 674 $ $8.67 Low Low 675 $ $3.83 Medium Medium 766 $ $0.62 High High Plymouth 772 $ $5.27 Medium Medium Plymouth 776 $ $5.65 Medium Medium Maple Grove 785 $ $1.81 High High Maple Grove 786 $ $2.14 High High Plymouth 790 $ $5.46 Medium Medium Southwest 169 Service $ $4.08 Medium Medium Cedar BRT $ $ Medium Medium Cedar BRT $ $ Stage II Low Low I-35W $ $4.66 Medium Medium Rosemount $ $ Medium Medium St Paul $ $ Medium Medium LRT Green Line LRT $1.25 $2.98 $5.37 $2.15 High Medium Medium Medium Maple Grove DAR Paratransit $ $13.45 N/A N/A Low Appendix D-2

41 PASSENGER PER IN-SERVICE HOUR (PRODUCTIVITY) Weekday Saturday Sunday System Average Urban Local Suburban Local Standard Urban Local Suburban Local Dial-a-Ride PPISH PPISH Score Provider Route RouteType Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual Weekday Saturday Sunday Overall 2 UrbLoc High High High High 3 UrbLoc Medium High Medium Medium 4 UrbLoc Medium Low Medium Medium 5 UrbLoc Medium Medium Medium Medium 10 UrbLoc High Medium Medium High 11 UrbLoc Medium Medium --- Medium 19 UrbLoc High High 22 UrbLoc High Medium Medium High 23 UrbLoc Medium Medium Medium Medium 60 UrbLoc Medium Medium Medium Medium 61 UrbLoc Medium Medium Medium Medium 62 UrbLoc Medium High --- High 63 UrbLoc Medium Medium Medium Medium 65 UrbLoc Medium Medium Medium Medium 67 UrbLoc Medium Medium Medium Medium 68 UrbLoc Medium Medium --- Medium 74 UrbLoc Medium Medium --- Medium 80 UrbLoc Medium Medium Medium Medium 83 UrbLoc Medium Medium --- Medium 84 UrbLoc Medium High Medium High 87 UrbLoc Medium Low --- Medium 110 UrbLoc High High 535 UrbLoc Medium Medium Medium Medium 54 E. 7th St UrbLoc Medium Medium Medium Medium 54 W. 7th St UrbLoc Medium Medium Met Council Red Line UrbLoc BRT Medium Medium Medium Medium 421 SubLoc Medium Medium 440 SubLoc Low Low 446 SubLoc Low Low 515 SubLoc High High High High 721 SubLoc High High 723 SubLoc High High Maple Grove 788B SubLoc High High Cedar BRT SubLoc Local Medium Medium Cedar BRT Local Stage SubLoc II Low Low Appendix D-3

42 Provider Route RouteType Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual Weekday Saturday Sunday Overall Cedar BRT Local Stage SubLoc II weekend --- Low Low Low Local SubLoc Coverage Low Sunday SubLoc Medium Medium Medium Medium High High High High High High High High BlueXpress Medium Medium High High High High Low Low Medium Medium High High Plymouth Low Low Plymouth Low Low Maple Grove High High Maple Grove High High Plymouth Low Low Southwest 169 Service High High Cedar BRT Low Low Cedar BRT Stage II Low Low I-35W Medium Medium Rosemount Medium Medium St Paul Medium Medium LRT Green Line LRT High High High High Maple Grove DAR Paratransit Medium Medium Appendix D-4

43 SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER EXPRESS MILE (new portion only) HIGH.24 or less (<System Average) MEDIUM (<130% of Route Average) LOW.68 or more (>130% of Route Average) Provider Route Annual Passengers Trip Exp Miles Annual Subsidy PXM Subsidy PXM , $508,467 1,772,250 $0.29 Medium , $98, ,040 $0.14 High , $116, ,360 $0.24 High , $165,332 2,809,080 $0.06 High , $259, ,560 $0.35 Medium BlueXpress , $533,511 2,221,560 $0.24 High , $138, ,010 $0.32 Medium , $100, ,200 $0.27 Medium , $297, ,453 $0.80 Low , $693, ,935 $0.82 Low , $101,449 1,485,120 $0.07 High Plymouth , $134, ,150 $0.72 Low Plymouth , $144, ,250 $0.49 Medium Maple Grove , $113,006 1,149,540 $0.10 High Maple Grove , $131, ,200 $0.13 High Plymouth , $292, ,250 $0.58 Medium Southwest 169 Service 157, $643,720 2,710,548 $0.24 High Cedar BRT 46, $317, ,309 $0.47 Medium Cedar BRT 17 Stage II 95,880 $799,264 1,629,960 $0.49 Medium I-35W 187, $872,962 3,242,453 $0.27 Medium Rosemount 53, $207,370 1,182,792 $0.18 High St Paul 73, $241, ,583 $0.28 Medium Appendix D-5

44 CONGESTION MITIGATION High = Combined AM/PM congestion score > 25, Medium = score > 10, Low = score < 10 Congestion score = High congestion miles x 3 + medium congestion miles x 2 + low congestion miles x 1 Based on MnDOT 2010 Congestion Report AM Congested Miles of High Miles of Medium Miles of Low Miles of High Miles of Medium Miles of Low Project Freeways Congestion Congestion Congestion Congestion Congestion Congestion AM Score PM Score Total Score Ranking 250 I-35W North High 270 Hwy 36/I-35W North High 275 I-35E North Medium 376 I-94 East High 386 I-94 East Medium 490 Hwy 169/I Medium 587 Hwy 100/I Medium 673 I Medium 674 I Medium 675 I Medium 766 I-94 North Low 772 I Medium 776 I Medium 785 I-694/I Low 786 I-694/I Low 790 I-394/Hwy Medium 169 Service Hwy 169/I Medium Cedar BRT I-35W South/ Hwy High Cedar BRT I-35W South/ Hwy Stage II High I-35W I-35W South High Rosemount I-35W South/ Hwy High St Paul I-35E South Low PM Appendix D-6

45 CAPITAL FACILITY COORDINATION High = No capital facilities required, or all necessary capital facilities either constructed or fully funded and planned for construction before service begins. Medium = Facilities programmed, but funding and construction not yet completed Low = Required facilities not programmed Provider Route Route Type Facility Need Funding Status Constuction Status Ranking 2 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 3 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 4 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 5 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 10 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 11 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 19 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 22 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 23 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 60 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 61 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 62 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 63 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 65 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 67 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 68 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 74 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 80 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 83 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 84 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 87 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 110 UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 535 UrbLoc Lake Street Station - 35W Unknown Unknown Low 54 E. 7th St UrbLoc None N/A N/A High 54 W. 7th St UrbLoc None N/A N/A High Stations, Bus-only Shoulders, Station improvements 2012 Completion Scheduled Met Council Red Line BRT UrbLoc Complete High 421 SubLoc None N/A N/A High 440 SubLoc None N/A N/A High 446 SubLoc None N/A N/A High 515 SubLoc None N/A N/A High 721 SubLoc None N/A N/A High 723 SubLoc None N/A N/A High Maple Grove 788B SubLoc None N/A N/A High Cedar BRT Local SubLoc None N/A N/A High Cedar BRT Local Stage II SubLoc Multiple Cedar BRT Investments Incomplete N/A Cedar BRT Local SubLoc Multiple Cedar BRT Investments Incomplete N/A Stage II weekend Low Local Coverage SubLoc None N/A N/A High Sunday SubLoc None N/A N/A High 250 None N/A N/A High Low 270 Maplewood Mall Expansion CMAQ/ Complete 2012 Completion 275 Lino Lakes 35E New Facility Ch 152/Complete Manning Ave New Facility CMAQ/ Complete Manning Ave New Facility CMAQ/ Complete 2014 High High High High Appendix D-7

46 Provider Route Route Type Facility Need Funding Status Constuction Status Ranking BlueXpress 490 P&R modifications and bus-only Incomplete/ Chp Unknown ramp 152 High 587 New Edina P&R Unknown Unknown Low 673 Co Rd 73 Expansion CMAQ/ Complete Complete High 674 Maple Plain P&R Ch 152, RTC, Henn Co/Complete 2012 High 675 Co Rd 73 Expansion CMAQ/ Complete Complete High 766 Noble Ave Expansion CMAQ/ Complete 2013 High Plymouth 772 None N/A N/A High Plymouth 776 None N/A N/A High Maple Grove 785 None N/A N/A High Maple Grove 786 Bass Lake Rd New P&R Unknown Unknown Low Plymouth 790 None N/A N/A High Unknown/ CMAQ App 2015 Construction Start Southwest 169 Service New 169 P&R Low Cedar BRT None N/A N/A High Cedar BRT Unknown/ CMAQ Multiple Cedar BRT Investments N/A Stage II App Low I-35W None N/A N/A High Rosemount Rosemount P&R CMAQ/ Complete 2012 Completion? High St Paul None N/A N/A High LRT Green Line LRT LRT Complete 2014 Completion High Maple Grove DAR Paratransit None N/A N/A High Appendix D-8

47 BENEFITS TO DISABLED COMMUNITY High = Percentage of disabled persons within ¼ mile of boarding section of route exceeds regional average of 14.2% AND application describes specific benefit Medium = Percentage of disabled persons within ¼ mile of boarding section of route exceeds regional average of 14.2%OR Percentage of disabled persons within ¼ mile of boarding section of route is lower than regional averegage AND application described specific benefit Low = Percentage of disabled persons within ¼ mile of boarding section of route is lower than regional average of 14.2%OR route with no local pick-up outside downtown. Methodology: Determine total population (5 and older) and disabled populations living within 1/4 mile of boarding section of a route. If the buffer touches any part of the blockgroup then the entire blockgroup is included. Use 2000 blockgroup census data. Total Aged 5+ Population Disabled Population Percent Disabled Application Upgrade Final Rank Comments Provider Route Route Type Initial Rank 2 UrbLoc 78,039 13, % Medium Medium 3 UrbLoc 81,353 14, % Medium Medium 4 UrbLoc 44,687 7, % Medium Medium 5 UrbLoc 96,563 19, % Medium Medium 10 UrbLoc 73,390 14, % Medium Medium 11 UrbLoc 74,054 15, % Medium Medium 19 UrbLoc 55,125 11, % Medium Medium 22 UrbLoc 87,339 17, % Medium Medium 23 UrbLoc 58,316 8, % Medium Medium 60 UrbLoc 37,324 5, % Medium X High New coverage 61 UrbLoc 97,474 18, % Medium X High AccessAbility 62 UrbLoc 31,657 6, % Medium Medium 63 UrbLoc 45,017 6, % Medium Medium 65 UrbLoc 51,437 8, % Medium Medium 67 UrbLoc 28,743 3, % Low Low 68 UrbLoc 55,204 11, % Medium Medium 74 UrbLoc 81,316 15, % Medium Medium 80 UrbLoc 42,660 8, % Medium Medium 83 UrbLoc 53,687 8, % Medium X High New coverage 84 UrbLoc 52,292 7, % Low Low 87 UrbLoc 40,052 4, % Low Low 110 UrbLoc 28,526 4, % Medium Medium 535 UrbLoc 54,308 11, % Medium Medium 54 E. 7th St UrbLoc 50,191 10, % Medium Medium 54 W. 7th St UrbLoc 27,702 5, % Medium Medium Met Council Red Line UrbLoc 44,494 5, % BRT Low Low 421 SubLoc 36,638 5, % Medium Medium 440 SubLoc 48,900 5, % Low Low 446 SubLoc 36,552 3, % Low X High ProAct Industries 515 SubLoc 36,978 6, % Medium Medium 721 SubLoc 25,522 4, % Medium Medium 723 SubLoc 42,045 6, % Medium Medium Maple Grove 788B SubLoc 17,676 1, % Low Low Cedar BRT SubLoc 151,887 18, % Local Low Low Cedar BRT Local Stage SubLoc 178,804 21, % II Low Low Cedar BRT Local Stage SubLoc 151,887 18, % II weekend Low X High Expanded coverage Local SubLoc % Coverage Low X Medium Expanded coverage Sunday SubLoc 114,452 14, % Low X High Expanded coverage ,712 1, % Low P&R Exp only Low 270 6,264 1, % Low P&R Exp only Low 275 4, % Low P&R Exp only Low 376 4, % Low P&R Exp only Low Appendix D-9

48 Total Aged 5+ Population Disabled Population Percent Disabled Application Upgrade Final Rank Comments Provider Route Route Type Initial Rank 386 4, % Low P&R Exp only Low BlueXpress 490 4, % Low Low ,947 1, % Low Low ,233 1, % Low P&R Exp only Low ,499 2, % Low Low ,803 2, % Medium Medium 766 2, % Low Low Plymouth ,078 2, % Low Low Plymouth ,646 2, % Low Low Maple Grove 785 7, % Low Low Maple Grove , % Low Low Plymouth ,640 2, % Low Low Southwest 169 Service 8, % Low P&R Exp only Low Cedar BRT 27,587 3, % Low P&R Exp only Low Cedar BRT 76,819 8, % Stage II Low P&R Exp only Low I-35W 74,990 10, % Low Low Rosemount 33,532 3, % Low Low St Paul 80,260 10, % Low Low LRT Green Line LRT 57,182 11, % Medium Medium Maple Grove DAR Paratransit 62,291 5, % Low Low Appendix D-10

49 BENEFITS TO LOW-INCOME/MINORITY POPULATIONS High: Medium: Low: 200% or higher of regional average for minority or low-income populations (14.4% for Low-Income and 52% for Minority) % of regional average for minority or low-income populations ( % for Low-Income and % for Minority) Less than regional average for minority and low-income populations(0-7.2% for Low-Income and 0-26% for Minority) Methodology: Determine total population, minority population and low-income population living within 1/4 mile of boarding section of a route. If the buffer touches any part of the block or blockgroup then the entire block or blockgroup is included. Use 2000 blockgroup census data for low-income and 2010 block census data for minority. Provider Route Route Type Total Population Low-Income Low-Income Percentage Low- Income Rank Total Block Population Minority Population Minority Percentage Minority Rank 2 UrbLoc 82,951 20, % High 82,790 28, % Medium High 3 UrbLoc 98,375 17, % High 89,268 28, % Medium High 4 UrbLoc 47,837 6, % Medium 47,803 9, % Low Medium 5 UrbLoc 108,168 18, % High 108,465 36, % Medium High 10 UrbLoc 78,830 9, % Medium 79,080 17, % Low Medium 11 UrbLoc 81,582 16, % High 81,154 26, % Medium High 19 UrbLoc 61,939 13, % High 61,421 25, % Medium High 22 UrbLoc 98,211 19, % High 96,344 37, % Medium High 23 UrbLoc 62,914 5, % Medium 62,566 14, % Low Medium 60 UrbLoc 40,406 6, % High 40,406 10, % Low Medium 61 UrbLoc 112,631 18, % High 105,821 27, % Low Medium 62 UrbLoc 35,845 6, % High 35,471 12, % Medium High 63 UrbLoc 48,279 5, % Medium 48,683 5, % Low Medium 65 UrbLoc 56,375 6, % Medium 55,647 12, % Low Medium 67 UrbLoc 31,025 2, % Medium 31,058 3, % Low Medium 68 UrbLoc 60,645 7, % Medium 60,525 14, % Low Medium 74 UrbLoc 89,194 11, % Medium 89,236 21, % Low Medium 80 UrbLoc 46,823 4, % Medium 46,568 12, % Medium Medium 83 UrbLoc 60,129 5, % Medium 57,743 9, % Low Medium 84 UrbLoc 60,869 4, % Medium 56,413 6, % Low Medium 87 UrbLoc 50,547 3, % Low 42,901 5, % Low Low 110 UrbLoc 30,265 2, % Medium 30,482 5, % Low Medium 535 UrbLoc 59,581 8, % Medium 59,326 9, % Low Medium 54 E. 7th St UrbLoc 55,761 8, % High 55,828 14, % Low Medium 54 W. 7th St UrbLoc 30,283 3, % Medium 30,551 7, % Low Medium Met Council Red Line BRT UrbLoc 48,579 1, % Low 48,517 4, % Low Low 421 SubLoc 40,524 1, % Low 40,392 5, % Low Low 440 SubLoc 53,146 1, % Low 52,863 5, % Low Low 446 SubLoc 39,844 1, % Low 40,055 4, % Low Low 515 SubLoc 40,581 2, % Low 40,828 9, % Low Low 721 SubLoc 28,207 2, % Medium 28,019 6, % Low Medium Overall Rank Appendix D-11

50 Provider Maple Grove Route Route Type Total Population Low-Income Low-Income Percentage Low- Income Rank Total Block Population Minority Population Minority Percentage Minority Rank 723 SubLoc 45,925 2, % Low 45,851 14, % Medium Medium 788B SubLoc 19, % Low 19,544 1, % Low Low Cedar BRT Local Cedar BRT Local Stage II Cedar BRT Local Stage II weekend SubLoc 165,351 5, % Low 165,575 24, % Low Low SubLoc 195,474 6, % Low 195,897 30, % Low Low SubLoc 165,351 5, % Low 165,575 24, % Low Low Local Coverage SubLoc % Low % Low Low Sunday SubLoc 124,337 5, % Low 124,358 18, % Low Low , % Low 13, % Low Low 270 6, % Low 6, % Low Low 275 7, % Low 7, % Low Low 376 4, % Low 4, % Low Low 386 4, % Low 4, % Low Low BlueXpress 490 4, % Low 4, % Low Low , % Low 19, % Low Low , % Low 10, % Low Low , % Low 24,025 1, % Low Low ,806 1, % Low 21,763 2, % Low Low 766 2, % Low 2, % Low Low Plymouth , % Low 26,682 2, % Low Low Plymouth , % Low 30,256 3, % Low Low Maple Grove 785 7, % Low 7, % Low Low Maple Grove , % Low 15,277 1, % Low Low Plymouth , % Low 25,490 3, % Low Low Southwest 169 Service 9, % Low 9, % Low Low Cedar BRT 29, % Low 29,551 4, % Low Low Cedar BRT Stage II 83,543 2, % Low 83,321 11, % Low Low I-35W 81,880 3, % Low 81,669 10, % Low Low Rosemount 36, % Low 36,333 2, % Low Low St Paul 86,736 3, % Low 86,826 14, % Low Low LRT Green Line LRT 63,027 15, % High 63,120 25, % Medium High Maple Paratransi DAR 67,455 1, % Low 67,758 9, % Low Low Grove t Overall Rank Appendix D-12

51 INNOVATION Provider Route Route Type Points Ranking Comment 2 UrbLoc 1 Medium HFN 3 UrbLoc 1 Medium HFN 4 UrbLoc 1 Medium HFN 5 UrbLoc 0 Low No response 10 UrbLoc 0 Low No response 11 UrbLoc 0 Low No response 19 UrbLoc 0 Low No response 22 UrbLoc 1 Medium HFN 23 UrbLoc 0 Low No response 60 UrbLoc 0 Low No response 61 UrbLoc 0 Low No response 62 UrbLoc 1 Medium HFN 63 UrbLoc 0 Low No response 65 UrbLoc 0 Low No response 67 UrbLoc 0 Low No response 68 UrbLoc 1 Medium HFN 74 UrbLoc 1 Medium HFN 80 UrbLoc 0 Low No response 83 UrbLoc 0 Low No response 84 UrbLoc 0 Low No response 87 UrbLoc 0 Low No response 110 UrbLoc 0 Low No response 535 UrbLoc 2 High Hwy BRT 54 E. 7th St UrbLoc 0 Low No response 54 W. 7th St UrbLoc 0 Low No response Met Council Red Line BRT UrbLoc 2 High Hwy BRT 421 SubLoc 1 Medium Flex route 440 SubLoc 1 Medium Flex route 446 SubLoc 0 Low Reverse commute, feeder route 515 SubLoc 0 Low No response 721 SubLoc 0 Low No response 723 SubLoc 0 Low No response Maple Grove 788B SubLoc 0 Low No response Cedar BRT Local SubLoc 0 Low Overall Cedar BRT goals are innovative Cedar BRT Local Stage SubLoc II 0 Low Overall Cedar BRT goals are innovative Cedar BRT Local Stage SubLoc II weekend 0 Low Overall Cedar BRT goals are innovative Local Coverage SubLoc 0 Low Flex may be appropriate Sunday SubLoc 0 Low Overall Cedar BRT goals are innovative Low No response Low No response Low No response Low No response Low No response BlueXpress 490 Consolidate multiple service types at one 1 Medium location Low No response Low No response Appendix D-13

52 Provider Route Route Type Points Ranking Comment Low No response Low No response Low No response Plymouth Low 30 min freq, 35% p&r utilization Plymouth Low Standees Maple Grove Low Coach buses, state-of-the art facility Maple Grove Low No response Plymouth Low Meet future demands Southwest 169 Service 0 Low LEED facility Cedar BRT 0 Low Overall Cedar BRT goals are innovative Cedar BRT Stage II 0 Low Overall Cedar BRT goals are innovative I-35W 0 Low Overall 35W BRT goals are innovative Rosemount 0 Low Overall Cedar BRT goals are innovative St Paul 0 Low Reinvents established service model LRT Green Line LRT 2 High LRT Maple Grove DAR Paratransit 0 Dial-a-Ride scheduling and dispatching Low software is state-of-the art Appendix D-14

53 APPENDIX E Overall Project Ranks

54 2011 RSIP Overall Project Scores and Rank by Project Subsidy per Passenger Passengers per In-Sevice Hour (PPISH) Congestion Mitigation () Capital Facility Coordination Benefits for Disabled Community Service to Low-income and Minority Populations Innovation Subsidy per Passenger Mile () 0.75 Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Final Score Possible Score Percent of Possible 0.6 Weighted Provider Project ID Route Type Score Score Score Weighted Score Score Score Weighted Score Score Score Weighted Points Score Score Rank Weight UrbLoc High 75 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 High 24 Medium % High 3 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 High 24 Medium % Medium 4 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Medium % Medium 5 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 High 24 Low % Medium 10 UrbLoc Medium 50 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % High 11 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 High 24 Low % Medium 19 UrbLoc High 75 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 High 24 Low % High 22 UrbLoc Medium 50 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 High 24 Medium % High 23 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % Medium 60 UrbLoc High 75 Medium 50 High 36 High 24 Medium 16 Low % High 61 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 High 24 Medium 16 Low % Medium 62 UrbLoc Medium 50 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 High 24 Medium % High 63 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % Medium 65 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % Medium 67 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Low 8 Medium 16 Low % Medium 68 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Medium % Medium 74 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Medium % Medium 80 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % Medium 83 UrbLoc High 75 Medium 50 High 36 High 24 Medium 16 Low % High 84 UrbLoc High 75 High 75 High 36 Low 8 Medium 16 Low % High 87 UrbLoc High 75 Medium 50 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low % High 110 UrbLoc High 75 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % High 535 UrbLoc High 75 Medium 50 Low 12 Medium 16 Medium 16 High % Medium 54 E. 7th St UrbLoc Low 25 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % Medium 54 W. 7th St UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % Medium Met Council Red Line BRT UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 High % Medium 421 SubLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Low 8 Medium % Medium 440 SubLoc Low 25 Low 25 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Medium % Low 446 SubLoc Medium 50 Low 25 High 36 High 24 Low 8 Low % Medium 515 SubLoc High 75 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 Low 8 Low % High 721 SubLoc High 75 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % High 723 SubLoc High 75 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % High Maple Grove 788B SubLoc High 75 High 75 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low % High Cedar BRT Local SubLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low % Medium Cedar BRT Local Stage II SubLoc Low 25 Low 25 Low 12 Low 8 Low 8 Low % Low Cedar BRT Local Stage II weekend SubLoc Low 25 Low 25 Low 12 High 24 Low 8 Low % Low Local Coverage SubLoc Low 25 Low 25 High 36 Medium 16 Low 8 Low % Low Sunday SubLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 High 24 Low 8 Low % Medium 250 Medium 50 Medium 50 High 30 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 Medium % Medium 270 High 75 High 75 High 30 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 High % High 275 High 75 High 75 Medium 20 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 High % High 376 High 75 High 75 High 30 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 High % High 386 Medium 50 High 75 Medium 20 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 Medium % Medium BlueXpress 490 Medium 50 Medium 50 Medium 20 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Medium 10 High % Medium 587 High 75 High 75 Medium 20 Low 12 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 Medium % Medium 673 High 75 High 75 Medium 20 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 Medium % High 674 Low 25 Low 25 Medium 20 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 Low % Low 675 Medium 50 Medium 50 Medium 20 High 36 Medium 16 Low 8 Low 10 Low % Medium 766 High 75 High 75 Low 10 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 High % High Plymouth 772 Medium 50 Low 25 Medium 20 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 Low % Low Plymouth 776 Medium 50 Low 25 Medium 20 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 Medium % Low Maple Grove 785 High 75 High 75 Low 10 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 High % High Maple Grove 786 High 75 High 75 Low 10 Low 12 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 High % Medium Plymouth 790 Medium 50 Low 25 Medium 20 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 Medium % Low Southwest 169 Service Medium 50 High 75 Medium 20 Low 12 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 High % Medium Cedar BRT Medium 50 Low 25 High 30 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 Medium % Medium Cedar BRT Stage II Low 25 Low 25 High 30 Low 12 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 Medium % Low I-35W Medium 50 Medium 50 High 30 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 Medium % Medium Rosemount Medium 50 Medium 50 High 30 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 High % Medium St Paul Medium 50 Medium 50 Low 10 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 10 Medium % Medium LRT Green Line LRT Medium 50 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 High 24 High % High Maple Grove DAR Paratransit N/A 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Low % Medium Appendix E-1

55 2011 RSIP Overall Project Scores and Rank by Rank Subsidy per Passenger Passengers per In-Sevice Hour (PPISH) Congestion Mitigation () Capital Facility Coordination Benefits for Disabled Community Service to Low-income and Minority Populations Innovation Subsidy per Passenger Mile () 0.75 Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Provider Project ID Route Type Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Rank Weight Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score 10 Final Score Possible Score Percent of Possible UrbLoc High 75 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 High 24 Medium % High 19 UrbLoc High 75 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 High 24 Low % High 110 UrbLoc High 75 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % High 721 SubLoc High 75 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % High 723 SubLoc High 75 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % High LRT Green Line LRT Medium 50 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 High 24 High % High 270 High 75 High 75 High 30 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 High % High 376 High 75 High 75 High 30 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 High % High 84 UrbLoc High 75 High 75 High 36 Low 8 Medium 16 Low % High 515 SubLoc High 75 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 Low 8 Low % High 22 UrbLoc Medium 50 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 High 24 Medium % High 62 UrbLoc Medium 50 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 High 24 Medium % High 275 High 75 High 75 Medium 20 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 High % High Maple Grove 788B SubLoc High 75 High 75 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low % High 60 UrbLoc High 75 Medium 50 High 36 High 24 Medium 16 Low % High 83 UrbLoc High 75 Medium 50 High 36 High 24 Medium 16 Low % High 673 High 75 High 75 Medium 20 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 Medium % High 766 High 75 High 75 Low 10 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 High % High Maple Grove 785 High 75 High 75 Low 10 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 High % High 10 UrbLoc Medium 50 High 75 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % High 3 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 High 24 Medium % Medium 535 UrbLoc High 75 Medium 50 Low 12 Medium 16 Medium 16 High % Medium 87 UrbLoc High 75 Medium 50 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low % Medium 5 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 High 24 Low % Medium 11 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 High 24 Low % Medium 61 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 High 24 Medium 16 Low % Medium 587 High 75 High 75 Medium 20 Low 12 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 Medium % Medium Maple Grove 786 High 75 High 75 Low 10 Low 12 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 High % Medium 386 Medium 50 High 75 Medium 20 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 Medium % Medium 4 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Medium % Medium 68 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Medium % Medium 74 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Medium % Medium Rosemount Medium 50 Medium 50 High 30 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 High % Medium 23 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % Medium 63 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % Medium 65 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % Medium 80 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % Medium 54 W. 7th St UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % Medium Sunday SubLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 High 24 Low 8 Low % Medium BlueXpress 490 Medium 50 Medium 50 Medium 20 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Medium 10 High % Medium 421 SubLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Low 8 Medium % Medium Southwest 169 Service Medium 50 High 75 Medium 20 Low 12 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 High % Medium Met Council Red Line BRT UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 High % Medium 250 Medium 50 Medium 50 High 30 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 Medium % Medium I-35W Medium 50 Medium 50 High 30 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 Medium % Medium Maple Grove DAR Paratransit N/A 50 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Low 8 Low % Medium 67 UrbLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Low 8 Medium 16 Low % Medium 675 Medium 50 Medium 50 Medium 20 High 36 Medium 16 Low 8 Low 5 Low % Medium Cedar BRT Local SubLoc Medium 50 Medium 50 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low % Medium St Paul Medium 50 Medium 50 Low 10 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 Medium % Medium 54 E. 7th St UrbLoc Low 25 Medium 50 High 36 Medium 16 Medium 16 Low % Low 446 SubLoc Medium 50 Low 25 High 36 High 24 Low 8 Low % Low Cedar BRT Medium 50 Low 25 High 30 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 Medium % Low Plymouth 776 Medium 50 Low 25 Medium 20 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 Medium % Low Plymouth 790 Medium 50 Low 25 Medium 20 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 Medium % Low Plymouth 772 Medium 50 Low 25 Medium 20 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 Low % Low Local Coverage SubLoc Low 25 Low 25 High 36 Medium 16 Low 8 Low % Low 440 SubLoc Low 25 Low 25 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Medium % Low 674 Low 25 Low 25 Medium 20 High 36 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 Low % Low Cedar BRT Stage II Low 25 Low 25 High 30 Low 12 Low 8 Low 8 Low 5 Medium % Low Cedar BRT Local Stage II weekend SubLoc Low 25 Low 25 Low 12 High 24 Low 8 Low % Low Cedar BRT Local Stage II SubLoc Low 25 Low 25 Low 12 Low 8 Low 8 Low % Low Appendix E-2

56 APPENDIX F Regional Service Improvement Plan Procedure Adopted by the politan Council September 2010

57 Regional Service Improvement Plan (RSIP) Procedures September 2010 I. Definition The Regional Service Improvement Plan (RSIP) is a document that identifies all regional opportunities to increase transit service to maintain quality of service on existing routes and expand frequency, span and coverage to develop new transit markets. The RSIP is prioritized to identify those projects that have the highest likelihood of success in achieving regional goals for transit service. II. Purpose The 2030 Transportation Policy Plan notes that the regular route bus system will change and expand as population, congestion and the cost of travel increase, as the region implements rail transit and as customer needs change. Defining these changes to the bus system, and advocating for funding to implement the changes is an important role of the politan Council and all regional transit providers as well as other stakeholders including local government, businesses and residents. The Regional Service Improvement Plan is an important tool to document and prioritize the region s opportunities to improve the transit system in the near term. There are two specific requirements that have bearing on the process for generating the RSIP and the content of the plan. 1. Transportation Policy Plan Requirement for RSIP The RSIP is required by the 2030 Transportation Policy Plan in Strategy 14c. Policy 14: System Operations and Management: The regional transit providers will promote innovation, efficiency, flexibility and greater diversity of options in operating and managing transit services. Strategy 14c. Service Improvement Plan: Every two years, regional transit providers in consultation with customers and stakeholders, will prepare a short term Service Improvement Plan that identifies their priorities for transit service expansion over the following two to four years. The plans will be submitted to the Council, which will prepare a regional Service Improvement Plan. politan Council RSIP Procedures Page 1 Appendix F-1

58 2. Use of RSIP to Support Distribution of Allocated MVST The Regional Operating Revenue Allocation Procedures includes use of the RSIP in the distribution of Regionally Allocated Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST). The top priority for Regionally Allocated MVST will be to preserve existing service and to fund committed service expansion. Once these needs are met, remaining Regionally Allocated MVST will be used to expand the transit system by increasing service on existing routes to meet growing demand, improving service frequency, span and coverage to attract new riders and adding new routes. The RSIP is used as a screening tool for service expansion projects. Those providers that have projects that achieve a certain level of priority in the RSIP will be eligible for service expansion funding from Regionally Allocated MVST. For this purpose, the RSIP must rank projects to identify those that best support regional goals. III. RSIP Procedure Development of the RSIP will be a four step process: 1. Solicit two to four year Service Improvement Plans from all regional transit providers 2. Review and combine service improvement projects into a single regional list 3. Evaluate projects based on regional performance measures and other factors 4. Prepare a categorized and prioritized list of projects to guide planning work and funding allocation decisions Step 1: Solicitation Service Improvement Plans (SIPs) will be solicited by the politan Council from all regional transit entities that receive State General Fund and/or MVST funding through the politan Council and that are directly responsible for planning service to be implemented with that funding. The individual provider SIPs should include a detailed list of all suggested service improvements for the next two to four years. Each project should include the following detail information: Route number Brief description of the improvement including markets/destinations served and reason for the improvement. Description of any existing capital facilities or future capital investments that are planned with or required for the service change (e.g., park & ride, transit center, transitway, etc.) Any support for the service change, including relationship to regional and local plans Any opposition to the service change A map of the existing route with proposed change or a map of the new route politan Council RSIP Procedures Page 2 Appendix F-2

59 Route type (urban local, suburban local, express) Proposed month and year of implementation For weekday, Saturday and Sunday: Number of new bus trips to be provided Number of additional AM peak, PM peak and midday buses required Number of new in service hours and platform hours required Current ridership per trip and total daily ridership (for existing routes) Estimated new ridership as a result of the service improvement Estimated total cost of service, estimated fare revenue and estimated subsidy. Include cost and revenue estimation factors used such as cost per hour, fare revenue per passenger, etc. Other secured or potential funding sources for the specific service (i.e. CTIB, CMAQ, JARC, private) Identification of impacts on required ADA service area and service levels. Calculated estimated subsidy per passenger and passengers per in service hour Step 2: Review and Combine Project Lists Project Review All SIP projects will be reviewed by a regional RSIP Review Committee convened by politan Council with one representatives from each suburban transit provider in addition to two from and one from politan Transportation Services. Particular attention will be paid to the service level and cost estimates for each project as well as the ridership projections. These elements have a significant influence on the factors that will be used to evaluate projects and compare them with one another. Any discrepancies or concerns with the SIP projects will be discussed with the individual transit providers so they can be resolved and the SIP submission adjusted if necessary. Combined Project List politan Council staff will combine all regional projects into a single list. Projects will be categorized by route type and project purpose. Route Type Urban Local / Limited Stop Suburban Local (including transitway connections) Project Purpose Increase capacity to meet growing demand Increase quality of service (frequency, span, speed) Improve network connectivity and coverage Develop new transit markets politan Council RSIP Procedures Page 3 Appendix F-3

60 Step 3: Project Evaluation Projects will be evaluated by the Review Committee in order to support development of a prioritized service improvement project list. The evaluation factors will include a combination of both quantitative measures and qualitative assessments of the proposed service improvements. Each project will be assigned a score of High, Medium or Low for each evaluation factor and then an overall score based on the combination (but not necessarily mathematical average) of the individual factors. The following table identifies the specific evaluation factors, applicable to the proposed service improvement, and the definition of High, Medium and Low scores. Factor Subsidy per Passenger Passengers per In Service Hour Congestion Mitigation Capital Facility and Running Way Coordination Benefits for ADA community Service to Minority and Low Income Populations Local Support Innovation Measure Measured in proportion to regional averages for service type: High = Better than the regional system average* for service type Medium = Better than 130% of regional route average* for service type Low = Worse than 130% of regional route average for service type Measured in proportion to regional standard for service type: High = Above regional system average for service and vehicle type Medium = Above regional average standard for service and vehicle type Low = Below regional average standard for service and vehicle type High / Medium / Low = Assessment of level and length of congested freeway segments served by the route. Primarily associated with commuter express routes. This factor primarily applies to peak commuter service. High = All necessary capital facilities planning, funded, and constructed in coordination with service change Medium = Facilities programmed, but funding and construction not yet secured Low = Required facilities not programmed High / Medium / Low based on recommendation of project sponsor and assessment of review committee. High / Medium / Low = Level of overall transit service improvement to minority and low income populations, including provision of reverse commute service. Consistency with Title VI requirements High / Medium / Low = Level of demonstrated local support for the service project, including identification in local plan, support from local government, businesses and residents, etc. High / Medium / Low based on recommendation of project sponsor and assessment of review committee. politan Council RSIP Procedures Page 4 Appendix F-4

61 * The regional system average for subsidy per passenger is calculated as the total subsidy across all routes divided by the total number of passengers. The regional route average is calculated as the sum of the subsidy per passenger values for each route divided by the total number of routes. Both statistics will be calculated across all routes within a given route type (i.e., urban local, suburban local, and express.) Step 4: Prioritized List of Projects Based on the evaluation, the overall project list will be organized into High, Medium and Low priority projects. The prioritized list will indicate which proposed service improvements have the greatest potential to meet regional goals of increasing transit ridership, operating efficient transit service, and growing the overall transit system. This summary will also include the resource requirements and costs of each project to allow for assessment of funding capacity during the allocation of regional transit operating funds. Regional Performance Standards 2030 Transportation Policy Plan, Page G-10 politan Council RSIP Procedures Page 5 Appendix F-5